Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

SELNEC (MANCHESTER CENTRAL AREA RAILWAY, ETC.) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WESTMINSTER ABBEY AND SAINT MARGARET WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] [Queen's' consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

STROMNESS (VEHICLE FERRY TERMINAL) PIER ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he proposes to take to prevent further increases in the prices of basic family foods such as meat and bread.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I am well aware of the difficulties that price increases bring about, particularly for those in the low income groups. It is for this reason that the Government took the action over milk, sugar and potatoes which made an important contribution to the improvement now evident in the Food Index. The increase in the index has declined from an annual rate of 11·1 per cent. in March, 1972, to 6·4 per cent. in May, 1972. I shall continue to take full account of the interests of consumers in reaching all decisions which may affect food prices.

Mrs. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how concerned housewives are not only about the current "penny-farthing" increase in bread prices but also about the bakers' forecast of a 40 per cent. increase under the common agricultural policy? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to prevent this and to protect British families from hardship if such a self-raising increase in flour and bread prices results from our Common Market entry?

Mr. Prior: The 40 per cent. increase prophesied by certain sections of the baking industry as the result of our joining the Community is greatly at variance with our figures, which show that the effect of entry is 2 per cent. a year.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Does not the rate of increase in food prices in the last six months show a marked improvement on the previous year and a very considerable improvement on the period immediately before the last election?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir, that is absolutely correct. I shall be giving the figures later on in Question Time.

Mr. Peart: Will the Minister refute the charge that workers' wage increases are responsible for the rise in food—especially meat—prices? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who always blame the workers for inflationary prices, now recognise that their propaganda has been false and wrong?

Mr. Prior: No, certainly not. No one should know better than the right hon. Gentleman that wage increases have had a far bigger effect on food prices as a whole than any other single factor.

Mr. Peart: What about beef?

Mr. Prior: If only the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister of Agriculture had done more to help beef production, there would not be the present shortage.

Mr. Peart: The Minister is dodging it.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the retail index of food prices had risen since November, 1969.

Mr. Prior: Between 18th November, 1969, and 16th May, 1972, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 26·0 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: Since the food price index has risen by 26 per cent. and the pension by only 20 per cent. since November, 1969, is the Minister aware that pensioners today have 6 per cent. less money in real terms with which to buy food than they had 2½ years ago? Is he further aware that by October 20p of the Government's proposed 75p rise will have been eroded before the pensioners receive it, yet in the Community food costs are expected to rise by 60p per week per pensioner? How can he justify so shamelessly selling the past for pensioners?

Mr. Prior: I cannot suggest how the hon. Gentleman can justify such a remark when he must appreciate that the figures cover at least part of the time when the Labour Government were in office. By next October the pension will have increased by 35 per cent. since November, 1969, which is a far higher in-

crease than the increase in the cost of food or the cost of living during that period. It will more than restore the pension to the purchasing power of November, 1969.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that that last supplementary question was an outstanding example of bogus statistical nonsense since it was based, first, on a wrong percentage increase in pension and, secondly, on the supposition that pensioners spend the whole of their money on food, which is another piece of nonsense? Such bogus questions should not be asked.

Mr. Prior: It is also a reflection of the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite may have forgotten that we have agreed to increase the pension annually, which has never happened previously and is regarded by pensioners as a great step forward.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Minister agree that within this overall increase in food prices the price of bread during six years of Labour Government went up by three pence on an average loaf and that under the Conservative Government it has increased by four pence? How does he explain this growth rate and his part in it? Has he investigated how far monopolies and competition have affected the position and will he say what percentage of all bread sold here comes from the top three bakery combines?

Mr. Prior: To deal with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is that between 75 and 80 percent. is sold by the three combines. As for the way the increase has come about, it has been partly as a result of increased wheat prices, some of which has been due to the operation of the levy system, I freely admit. But most of the increase has come about because of increases in wages and other costs in the baking industry. I think we should do well to recognise that.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what use of computers his Department intends to make in its calculation of future trends in food prices.

Mr. Prior: Computers are used in many aspects of the Ministry's work but


have not so far been considered appropriate to the specific area mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Huckfield: Is it not a fact that though price increases have taken place at such a fantastic rate, and because the Minister continues to give such jovial and rosy answers, matters have reached the stage where the only possible excuse that the right hon. Gentleman can use is an error of some kind in a computer programme? He cannot possibly maintain that he is personally making these calculations.

Mr. Prior: I had the feeling that the hon. Gentleman's Question might not be directed entirely to the use of computers and that there might be another meaning behind it. I am able to tell him that computers are used to try to forecast trends. Unfortunately the success of such a process depends very much on the information fed into computers, since that affects what comes out of them.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a computer is not necessary to demonstrate that the three-shilling loaf that the Prime Minister predicted under a Labour Government will be achieved under his own?

Mr. Prior: All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that during his period in office we had four increases in bread prices, all of them supported by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Spearing: Where is it now?

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June, 1970.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, during the 23 months ended May, 1972, by how much percentage retail food prices have increased.

Mr. Prior: Between 16th June, 1970, and 16th May, 1972, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 17·4 per cent.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a direct result of his policies millions of people are denied the basic commodities of life? Does not the right

hon. Gentleman understand that, on the basis of his own recent statements, many of them regard him as probably the finest comic since Groucho Marx? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman pop along to the Prime Minister this afternoon to resign and thereby get off the backs of all of us?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman does no good by the sort of language he uses to a cause which is worrying a great many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the curve of price increases has flattened out a great deal during this year? Will my right hon. Friend give us a direct comparison between the rate of increase in prices during the six months ended May, 1972, with the six months ended May, 1970, which is the proper comparison in this context?

Mr. Prior: There is still a long way to go, as we recognise. The figures for which my hon. Friend asks show that in the last six months from November, 1971, to May, 1972, the increase is 3·9 per cent.—

Mr. William Hamilton: And going up.

Mr. Prior: That is still serious enough. But compared with the six months from November, 1969, to May, 1970, which was the six-month period before the election and really was the start of this accelerating process, the figure was 6·8 per cent.

Mr. Buchan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Financial Times index for this month shows something like a 6·6 per cent. increase? The right hon. Gentleman should stop accusing hon. Members on this side of the House of using strong language when referring to basic prices when the right hon. Gentleman alone is responsible for the increase in the three basics of beef, bread and beer in the last month—or was that merely a "prior" commitment that we got before the election?

Mr. Prior: Perhaps the news that I have just given will help right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side to be a little more sober in some of their remarks.

Meat

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received with respect to the measures he has announced aimed at containing the recent increases in beef prices.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from farming organisations regarding the limiting of beef exports; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Prior: I have received a number of requests that exports of cattle and beef should be controlled. I have said that I am keeping the situation under review.

Mr. Strang: Surely even the Minister is aware that housewives are outraged at the present level of beef prices. Will he come clean with them and tell them that not only is he unwilling or unable to intervene to reduce these prices but that any reductions which may occur will be of a temporary and minor nature because Common Market beef prices are still higher than British beef prices?

Mr. Prior: Prices in the Community are now at about 120 per cent. over their target prices. If they come down, as they now show signs of doing to 113 per cent., the tariffs will have to be reintroduced. In that case, over the next succeeding five years tariffs will be phased out by one-fifth at a time. This gives us ample opportunity to adjust our prices, as the Government have said would happen, in the transitional period.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that many people, not least the farmers, regard what has happened over the last few weeks as merely a sample of what we can expect once we enter Europe? Though the farmers might welcome the idea, does not the Minister appreciate that housewives will be in utter despair, as was so well illustrated the other evening when the Minister met a well-informed housewife on television?

Mr. Prior: No doubt she was heavily prompted by the Labour Party, but I shall not go into that matter now. I turn to the serious point made by the hon. Gentleman. At the moment there is a free market operating in beef between

this country and Europe, yet our prices are still about £3 a hundredweight lower than Community prices. This is very significant for the future.

Mr. Brewis: Does not the situation show the need to increase home production of beef, and is this not exactly what my right hon. Friend has been doing during the last two years?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Every pointer over the last 18 months shows that we are now moving agriculture forward at a faster rate than at any time for a great many years, probably since the war. This is exemplified by the figures of calf slaughterings, by animals coming forward for calf subsidy and by the increase in the breeding herd. This is all very satisfactory.

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of recent policy changes in regard to meat prices and the increase in cost to the consumer, he will now introduce legislation imposing price control to protect the interests of the housewife and those employed in the retail and distributive trades.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir.

Mr. Milne: Is it not unfortunate that the Minister has no answer to give to a Question of this kind, and will not measures which exclude any question of price control be meaningless in dealing with the present situation? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his very brief answer gave the game away about Common Market legislation, because when we are in the Community not only will prices escalate even further but Britain's Minister of Agriculture will have no control over them?

Mr. Prior: The last part of that supplementary question is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows it. As for the first part, calling upon me to put controls on the price of meat, I must point out that the Labour Government found this impracticable to carry out and I agreed with them.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Apart from any party political points, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the meat situation in this country which is very serious? The facts are that in Europe meat is selling on the hoof for £22 a


hundredweight and is down slightly in this country, but there certainly is a meat shortage. Surely what my right hon. Friend should do is to make arrangements overseas to obtain long-term contracts. How does he explain the shortfall in red meat this year? Will he say whether rumours in the trade to the effect that there will be less red meat available this year than last year are true or false?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend should do his homework. He would then know that there is nothing to stop meat coming to this country at the moment. We are entitled to take all available steps, but there is a world shortage of red meat. I can give my right hon. Friend the absolute assurance that home-produced red meat supplies this year will be more than they were last year, and that next year they will be at least 50,000 tons more than they are this year.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest trend of beef prices at the wholesale and retail stage.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the price of beef sold to the British housewife.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what fall in beef prices has taken place since the removal of the 5 per cent. tariff.

Mr. Prior: Auction prices for cattle reached a peak at the beginning of the week beginning 5th June and last week were in the region of £1 per cwt. below the previous week. The price of United Kingdom beef on Smithfield has also eased and yesterday was as much as 4½p per 1b. lower than a fortnight before for hinds, and up to nearly a 1p per lb. down for forequarters. Information on retail prices suggests that these also have steadied.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply which confirms that beef prices have long since "peaked out" and are stabilising at a better level for the housewife. Will he confirm three important points: first, yet again, that the rate of rise of food prices as a whole over six-monthly periods under

Labour was far worse than it has been under the present Government; secondly, that in recent weeks a large number of key food products have either remained at the same level or fallen in price; and thirdly, and even more important, that the storm in the Socialist teacup about beef prices three weeks ago was an irresponsible attempt to alarm housewives unnecessarily?

Mr. Prior: We have been through a rough time on beef prices—

Mr. Peart: You have.

Mr. Prior: —and housewives more than I. I feel very sorry for them at having to bear the burden in paying these higher prices. However, I do not think that the Opposition can take credit for the situation in that prices were rising far faster during their last six months in office than they are now. What is more, if the Opposition had done what they ought to have done for British agriculture we should not have been in the mess that we were three weeks ago.

Mr. Marten: Was not the fall in beef prices due in large part to the resistance of the housewife in switching from beef to poultry and lamb, which in turn forced up prices of both those commodities? If this should happen in the Common Market, what is the outlook for the British housewife in buying beef if we are in the Common Market? It is very poor, is it not?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend must not allow his prejudice to get the better of him and in doing so he must not try to push up the price of poultry. It has hardly moved at all in the last three weeks, and it is about 5p a pound cheaper than it was two years ago.
The increase in the price of beef brought a number of extra cattle forward on to the market at a time when there was a consumer resistance, and there has been a considerable fall in prices over the last three weeks. My one worry now is that consumer resistance may build up permanently, and I think that would be a danger for us all.

Mr. Mitchell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would answer my Question. What fall in the rate of beef prices has there been since the 5 per cent. tariff was taken off?

Mr. Prior: So far the fall, if any, is very marginal. This is because it takes two or three weeks from the time the cattle are sold at auction for the beef to coming through to the retail trade. Secondly, it is a reflection of the fact that butchers did not put up prices by the full amount of the increased prices they were paying for their beef.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the price of beef is still too high? I wonder whether he would give an indication that he would consider further measures if there were an increase? Does he think that the decrease will continue?

Mr. Prior: I have already given an assurance to the House on various occasions that I am watching the position on a daily basis. If I felt that there was a need for further action I should not hesitate to take it, but I see no reason for it at this stage. On the question of beef prices being too high, prices will only reflect the supply and demand situation, and I expect the supply situation to improve considerably during the next few months.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Labour Government held beef prices reasonably steady during a period of shortage when there was the worst foot-and-mouth epidemic in modern times? Is he further aware that he cannot claim credit for the increase in the breeding herd and at the same time refer to a three-year beef cycle?

Mr. Prior: Having looked carefully at the figures I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in May, 1965, there was a seasonal increase in beef prices of over £1 a hundredweight. The fact that a foot-and-mouth outbreak occurs during the winter does not necessarily affect beef supplies coming forward in the early part of the summer.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he intends to take in order to reduce beef prices.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, having regard to the shortage of beef and the example of the United States

of America in derogating from the policy of sanctions to meet special national needs, he will investigate the possibilities of importing beef from Rhodesia.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement about supplies and prices of beef.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on beef supplies.

Mr. Prior: The problems which arose earlier this month were the result of a combination of factors including a world-wide shortage of beef and seasonally low supplies of home-produced beef. The suspension of our tariffs on beef and veal has afforded our overseas suppliers duty-free access here as well as in the EEC. Developments over the last 10 days indicate that the market is settling down and prices have steadied. Adequate supplies of home-fed and imported beef are available; and there are good supplies of other meats too. In present circumstances I propose no further action. I am however keeping the situation under close and continuing review on a daily basis.

Mr. Moyle: In view of that reply may we have a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he regards the inflationary rates of pay to agricultural workers as in no way a cause of the recent high prices of beef?

Mr. Prior: I have never for a moment said that the rates of pay for agricultural workers are a cause of the high prices for beef.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in more than one sanctioneering black African State I have been regaled with deliciously tender, relatively cheap Rhodesian beef, and could not we have a cut off that joint?

Mr. Prior: That is not a question for me.

Mr. Morrison: As it is more than likely that the world-wide demand for beef will continue to increase, does my right hon. Friend think that increased home production resulting from the encouragement which he has given to the


industry will be able to counteract the falling amount of beef which may be available for us to import from the rest of the world?

Mr. Prior: I think we shall be able to get from our own farms increased beef supplies of between 50,000 tons and 60,000 tons a year over the next few years. This is greatly to the credit of the whole of the agriculture industry. If on top of that we can go in for an export trade. what is so wrong with exports?

Mr. Peart: In his previous reply the right hon. Gentleman exonerated farm workers from increasing beef prices. Which section of workers is responsible? Whom does he blame?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is inflationary wage settlements throughout industry as a whole which have contributed more than anything else to increases in price. As regards the price of beef I have already said—and if the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply he would have heard this—that it is a shortage of world supplies that has forced up prices.

European Economic Community

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the powers he will possess if the United Kingdom becomes a member of the European Economic Community unilaterally to reduce the import levy on imported foods or prohibit export of home-produced food from Great Britain.

Mr. Prior: The determination of import levies will be for the Community institutions, in which we shall participate fully. Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome prohibits national measures to restrict exports, but the Community has wide powers to deal with market disturbances.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that we shall have no unilateral powers whatever in respect of either the matters contained in my Question or any others? Will he further confirm that any changes of policy must be unanimous with all Community members and that we shall have only a small voice in these matters?

Mr. Prior: That supplementary question shows how little the hon. Gentleman understands about the way the Com-

munity works. It is true that we shall no longer be able to take unilateral action on a national basis, but we shall be able to play a full part in reaching decisions, which is something we have not been able to do in the last year or two and something which as regards beef is happening to us now outside the Community

Mr. Peart: In saying that my hon. Friend is not aware of these matters, is not the Minister being somewhat arrogant? Has he not proved my hon. Friend's point by his own answer? Will he spend a little more time dealing with the dangers of the common agricultural policy to British agriculture and the consumer?

Mr. Prior: Just because farmers on the whole feel that CAP is a good answer to many of their problems, the right hon. Gentleman should not cry sour grapes when he has been proved wrong.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the preparatory work and market research being undertaken both by his Ministry and other organisations in respect of the potential market for exports from the United Kingdom of agricultural and horticultural products in both the existing and applicant countries of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): Assessment of market prospects is primarily a matter for individual industries and firms although my Ministry and our representatives in the United Kingdom delegation in Brussels and the other capitals are ready to provide all available information and advice. Work to assemble information on various aspects of agriculture and food production, consumption and trade in the Six and acceding countries is being undertaken by the National Economic Development Council and other official bodies and of course by commercial and industrial organizations.

Mr. Hicks: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to take note of the urgent need to ensure that this information relating to potential export markets is relayed back to the individual producer and individual


marketing organisation throughout the United Kingdom so that they in turn can make an objective assessment of the situation which they will face when we are in the EEC?

Mr. Mills: Yes, my hon. Friend is right; this is an important subject. The information must be relayed back, and it will be. I hope that we shall have a very determined outlook on exports of agricultural products. Much work is being done to gather the right information about this subject.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further revised estimate of the effect on food prices of entry into the European Economic Community in view of the current level of beef prices.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a revised estimate has now been made of the rise in the cost of food consequent upon British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: It would not be practicable to revise the published estimate at short intervals to take account of fluctuations in prices of individual commodities.

Mr. Deakins: Does not the trend in beef prices in Britain in the past year show what is to be expected in the Common Market, as high-cost agricultural production means higher prices in the shops and reduced consumption by ordinary people?

Mr. Prior: I have no reason at the moment to alter the figures that I gave to the House a few weeks ago on the actual difference between our prices and Common Market prices on the basis of the farm gate price. I stick to that.

Mr. Lamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have attempted to reassure pensioners by telling them that they will be protected from the increase in food prices when we join the Common Market? Today the right hon. Gentleman has repeated the Government estimate that prices will increase by only 2 per cent. If this is translated into money terms, which pensioners are interested in, and if allowance is made for the fact, which has also been pointed out today, that pen-

sioners do not spend all their income on food, it means that the Government are prepared to try to reassure pensioners that an increase in their pensions of about 10p will fully protect them against price increases arising from entry into the Common Market. I do not think that pensioners will for a moment accept that.

Mr. Prior: Pensioners are not being asked to accept the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The official estimate of the difference between our prices and Community prices, or of adopting Community prices, is not intended as a forecast of what will happen to food prices over the next few years. It is intended merely to show the difference which will apply each year between our prices and Community prices.
Whatever the actual increase in the price of food or in the cost of living year by year or year to year, this is the figure that will be reviewed each year in old-age pensions.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: What is the point of going in for a dear food policy?

Mr. Prior: It is not so much a question of going in for a dear food policy as of adopting a policy for food and agriculture which will enable Britain to produce far more food at home than it has done before and thus avoid some of the perils of the last few years.

Mr. Buchan: Why does the right hon. Gentleman deny his own policy? His own policy was to try to achieve high prices. He will recall that he told us that the British people had been molly-coddled for too long on cheap food and that prices had to rise. This was his "prior" policy. What is his policy now?

Mr. Prior: Everything I said then is absolutely true. If we had had reasonable prices for agricultural production at the time I was making those remarks, we would not have got into the muddle we have got into as a result of that policy.

Apples and Pears

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce compensation terms for growers of apples and pears affected


by entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Mills: This matter is still under consideration. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as he can.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now more than two years since the promise of compensation was first made to growers whose livelihood would suffer from the subsidised surpluses of the Common Market? We still do not know the basis on which the scheme will operate. Nor do we know the levels of compensation that will be paid. Indeed, we do not even know the compensatory levies to be applied from next year in theory. This continuing uncertainty can hardly help the industry. Will my hon. Friend urge that an early statement be made?

Mr. Mills: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. There have been a number of meetings between the National Farmers Union and my officials. My right hon. Friend is now considering the results of those meetings. We are all concerned about it, and my hon. Friend will have an answer.

Trees (Mortality)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will sponsor a research team to investigate the cause of the death of trees, with particular reference to contamination by lead and other poisonous materials.

Mr. Peter Mills: Contamination by lead and other poisonous materials is not a major factor in the mortality of trees and I do not think that additional research is necessary.

Mr. Chapman: While I appreciate that answer and while I am aware that the Forestry Commission obviously is undertaking research into the preservation of softwoods in plantations, may I point out to my hon. Friend that there is real need of a detailed survey and research into the causes of deaths of trees in areas where they are mostneeded—in other words, in our towns and cities—the more so as we approach the national tree planting year?

Mr. Mills: I realise my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, especially in Plant a Tree Year. However, there are only isolated cases of this problem. It does not seem to be widespread. Certainly I shall look into specific cases that my hon. Friend may have in mind. They will be investigated.

Mr. David Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply was very disappointing and complacent and that there are many poisonous substances in the atmosphere, notably sulphur dioxide, which have a terrible effect on trees in our cities? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider his original answer?

Mr. Mills: No. Research is being done by the Forestry Commission and by a number of universities. This is not a widespread problem. Again, however, if the hon. Gentleman has specific cases in mind, I shall investigate them.

Food Manufacturers Federation

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Food Manufacturers Federation.

Mr. Prior: I met many of the federation's members at a luncheon in April, and I have since had discussions with a number of leading food manufacturers associated with the FMF. I shall have an opportunity to meet most of its executive committee informally later this month.

Mr. Cox: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that week after week millions of people are being fleeced by price increases which cannot be justified because many of the items that are being increased in price are already in the shops? Because of that, someone must be making a huge profit. Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's job to seek a meeting with the federation and explain how he attempts, or will attempt, to tackle this abuse which is lowering the standard of living of millions of people?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense and he does his case no good by that kind of cheap exaggeration.

Mr. Cox: The right hon. Gentleman should go to the shops and see for himself.

Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman is fair he will recognise that the food manufacturing industry has done a remarkably good job in the last year in keeping prices as stable as it has. In view of the difficult situation of world supplies, and also of wages and inflation in this country, I think that the Food Manufacturers Federation is to be congratulated on what it has been able to do.

Mr. Farr: One of the points which the Food Manufacturers Federation has made to my right hon. Friend is about VAT and purchase tax on food. May I ask my right hon. Friend to make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should reconsider present Government policy in changing over from purchase tax to VAT on certain popular and widely consumed foodstuffs?

Mr. Prior: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but the products to which my hon. Friend refers have been reduced on two occasions in terms of purchase tax. We have halved SET. The operation of VAT on these foodstuffs will mean a further reduction in the burden of tax which they have to bear, but I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said and pass his comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rabies

Mr. Love ridge: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the number of officials responsible for administering the quarantine regulations in connection with rabies is regularly reviewed to ensure that these regulations can be efficiently enforced.

Mr. Peter Mills: Yes, in so far as it is within my right hon. Friend's power to do so, given that enforcement of these regulations falls mainly to local authorities and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

Mr. Loveridge: I congratulate those who do the job of keeping us safe from rabies. I ask my hon. Friend to do his best to ensure the completion of the putting into effect of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into rabies. Will he take further steps to ensure that the public are alerted to the dangers, so

as to discourage the folly of smuggling pets?

Mr. Mills: Yes, I am aware of this problem. There is a growing problem with contact with the Continent. We are studying the proposals that have been made by the committee of inquiry on rabies. My staff are already liaising fully with, and will advise, the local authorities and Her Majesty's Customs responsible for enforcement.

Mr. Moyle: Will these regulations continue to apply if we join the Common Market?

Mr. Mills: Yes, indeed.

Barley (Price)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the guaranteed price of barley in the United Kingdom for the coming year; what is the present market price; and how these figures compare with the present basic intervention price in the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Mills: The guaranteed price of barley for 1972–73 is £31·20 a ton. The present United Kingdom market price is £26·73. The European Economic Community's basic intervention price is currently £40·51.

Mr. Wainwright: In spite of the figures that the Minister has given, is he aware that the Government policy of consistency to help the home farmer is so ridiculous that the farmer today does not know where he stands? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that barley in Britain this year is £9 per ton less than it was last year for the farmer and that this has a great impact on the earnings of a small farmer? How does the hon. Gentleman expect the small farmer to pay decent wages to farm workers if the Government's policy is as ludicrous as this?

Mr. Mills: The great thing about British agriculture at present is that farmers know where they are under this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the last two Price Reviews have shown this very clearly. Although the price will rise, it will rise gradually and the end price will rise to them as well. Mark my words, farmers know where they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (DISPERSAL)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will show the distribution of transfers of central staff of the Civil Service to development areas outside London over the last two years.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Between April, 1970, and April, 1972, some 4,600 jobs were established in assisted areas. I will, with permission, publish details of the distribution in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dalyell: Since, doubtless justifiably, the Government are expanding the Civil Service at a faster rate than ever my right hon. Friends did, should not some of this expansion be directed towards the regions? Is the Prime Minister satisfied that enough of the expansion of the Civil Service is going to the regions?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman should not take for granted everything which is said in a Monday Club letter and which is not borne out by the figures given to the House. On the question of dispersal, at the moment the arrangements provide for a further 8,300 jobs to be dispersed from London, as well as for 10,680 jobs to be established in new offices outside London. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the dispersal is going on at a reasonable rate. When he sees the breakdown of the information, he will see that out of the 4,597 jobs whose distribution I give just on 2,000 have gone to Scotland.

Mr. Kilfedder: There is a great need for jobs in Northern Ireland and a need to boost the morale of the Ulster people. There has been no transfer of civil servants to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend transfer one service to Northern Ireland to help with the solution of our problems?

The Prime Minister: The reason for that in the past was plain: it was the separate Administration in Northern Ireland. In exactly the same way, dispersal from Whitehall tends to deal with Scotland, Wales and the regions of England and not Northern Ireland. The study of further dispersal is concerned with policy work. This is limited to 90,000 jobs in London. These are those

which are being examined at present. It would obviously be difficult to disperse them into Northern Ireland—or into Belfast in particular—because, from the point of view of the organisation of government here, it is necessary for them to be within reasonable distance if it is possible to disperse them.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the obvious claims of Merseyside? Is he further aware that Merseyside's position is not being helped by a strike by 17 men which has been going on in my constituency for 12 months? This strike is holding up the completion of a Government office for the Inland Revenue which will employ 3,500 people. Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he possibly can with his officials and members of the Cabinet to stop this disastrous and wasteful strike in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: I am sure my right hon. Friend will do everything possible. But I am sure also that the hon. Gentleman has himself been doing everything possible, because he has always tried to bring about a more peaceful state of industrial relations. From the breakdown I have given, the hon. Gentleman will find that some 760 of the total of around 4,600 jobs have gone to Merseyside.

Dame Irene Ward: I accept what my right hon. Friend is trying to do in dispersal, but will he remember that the regions are anxiously awaiting actual action? Is he aware that following the request from the Northern Region for the transfer of the new Gas Council set-up, the reply I received is not very satisfactory? Is he aware that we need a few more policy-making decisions to bring people to our part of the world? Some of them have been taken away from the region, and this is very unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend has a good idea, but will he get on with it a little more quickly?

The Prime Minister: I must tell my hon. Friend that the action has been taken and is being continued. The figures I have given are 4,600 jobs in the last two years, of which around 600 went to the Northern Region. There are 8,300 jobs in process of being dispersed from London. The examination which will be completed by the end of this year will deal with 90,000 jobs at present in London.

Mr. Pentland: In addition to that, the Prime Minister will recall that the Government's decision not to go ahead with the Inland Revenue computer centre at Washington, in my constituency, meant a loss of 3,000 prospective Civil Service jobs for the North-East Region. As there is now a desperate need for this type of job opportunity, will the Prime Minister say what immediate action the Government propose to take to counter-balance the loss of those 3,000 jobs?

The Prime Minister: We recognise the difficulties that were produced by the decision not to go ahead with the computer center at Washington. In view, however, of the fact that we were working on the question of the tax credit system which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget and about which he is in the process of preparing a Green Paper, we thought it right to take that decision. Regarding value added tax, the Chancellor has already announced that, apart from the headquarters at Southend, the civil servants engaged will be spread throughout the regions. We hope that this will do something to counter the particular problem which has arisen. For the rest, it will depend on the recommendations of the committee which is now examining the jobs of 90,000 civil servants who are employed in London on policy work.

The following is the information:


Area
Number of Jobs


Scottish Special Development Area
1,111


Welsh Special Development Area
803


Northern Special Development Area
322


Northern Development Area
291


Merseyside Development Area
760


Edinburgh Intermediate Area
830


South East Wales Intermediate Area
429


South West Devon Intermediate Area
51


Total
4,597

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and Social Security

and the Department of Employment in respect of prices and incomes policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does that answer mean that the Prime Minister and the Government have a prices and incomes policy? If they have, what does it mean? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as long as land speculators flourish and as long as the prices of bread and beer, and other essentials of ordinary people, are soaring, it is no wonder that even his own supporters are describing him as the biggest Judas in the last thousand years? Will he now tell us what he intends to do to implement his promise to reduce prices at a stroke?

The Prime Minister: What it means is that since July, 1971, retail prices have increased by 4¾ per cent., instead of 8¾ percent. as in the same period a year ago. That is something that the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge instead of shouting in his ridiculous way. It also means that the rate of increase of wage awards has also decreased and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, even since Wilberforce, of the 36 public sector settlements 21 were 8 per cent, or under. That is what the policy means and that is what it is achieving.

Mr. Redmond: Would my right hon. Friend agree that by voting against VAT and voting for selective employment tax, the Opposition have voted for a tax on food? Would he care to comment on the price of butter, milk and sugar, and would he agree that the housewife has dealt with the rise in beef prices very effectively?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. One does not expect to hear from the Opposition when prices come down.

Mr. Peart: When?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who was once Minister of Agriculture, will acknowledge that butter prices have come down.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's claims last week and this week that the Government had succeeded in slowing down the rate of


cost of living increases, may I ask whether he has seen yesterday's statement in the Financial Times and its monthly index of food prices? Basing February, 1971, as 100, it has now risen 16 per cent. above the February, 1971, level in as many months. Is that what he promised the country?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with statistics, he should deal with the cost of living as a whole and not extract one part of it. He used to pride himself on the accuracy and integrity of a statistician. Perhaps he should stick to that.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry if I did not give the right hon. Gentleman a brief on this matter. Throughout the General Election the right hon. Gentleman consistently referred to food prices. If he has not seen it, I will send him the text of what he said on Saturday to the housewives of Leicester about food prices. If the right hon. Gentleman wants accurate figures, they have risen 15·9 per cent. since February, 1971, according to the Financial Times index. Does the right hon. Gentleman question that index? If not, how does he defend it?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants figures, from November, 1969, to May, 1970, under his Administration, prices rose by 6·8 per cent. From November, 1971, to May, 1972, they rose by 3·9 per cent. That is what has been achieved by the present Government, by contrast with what we took over from the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDINBURGH (VISIT)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if he will now pay an official visit to Edinburgh.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 12th May, Sir, when I met representatives of the Scottish Council, Development and Industry. I have at present no plans for a further visit.

Mr. Strang: Will the Prime Minister go again to Edinburgh and arrange an urgent meeting with the Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party who last week made a slashing attack on the

Government's failure to develop our North Sea oil resources in a way which maximised the number of new jobs created in Scotland? How long shall we have to wait before the Government do an about-turn and adopt for the oil industry the sort of interventionist policies they have already adopted for shipbuilding and computers?

The Prime Minister: What Sir William McEwan Younger said was that, in the issue of licences, the Government ought to have tied the licences for North Sea oil development to the use of specific products made in Scotland. This was not done by the previous Administration. We have considered it but have not embarked upon this policy. We believe that these companies can develop best under the present licensing system, as they have done. What Sir William did was to deliver a slashing attack on the defeatism of Scottish industry, all parts of it, for not being prepared to work with the oil companies in order to produce all their requirements. These were personal opinions. But I hope that Scottish industry can take the initiative required in order to meet all the requirements of the oil companies. It cannot achieve it by being ordered to do so by a Government. It has to be done by individual firms, managements and trade unions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy at Luton Hoo on 27th May.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at Luton Hoo on 27th May on the subject of industrial relations.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on the subject of Government policy delivered at Luton Hoo on 27th May, 1972.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 30th May, Sir.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech he said
We shall have no battles and let no one ask this Government to surrender"?
Since on each occasion he has chosen the battle ground and on each occasion he has had to surrender, is it not about time we had a new general or that the whole army was disbanded?

The Prime Minister: When an inflationary wage claim is granted, this is a defeat for the country as a whole if it leads to further inflation. If the trade unions and the party opposite cannot realise that, they will never understand the impact of excessive wage demands on inflation.

Mr. Meacher: Since in that speech the Prime Minister stressed the interest of the wider community, why have his Government given a £1 a week tax reduction to all tax-paying, including surtax-paying, households, yet to the pensioners the 75p rise which they are to get is merely the restoration of purchasing power which would have been granted anyway? Why has he, in comparable terms, given nothing at all to them?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, as he so often is in his statistics. The pension increase is more than is required to deal with any increase in the cost of living. The two increases granted by the present Government—the one at the end of last year and the one next autumn—are an increase of 32½ per cent. in the pension, which is greater than has ever been granted in this period by any Government before.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would it not be something if hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in a serious situation ceased trying to squeeze the last drop of party political advantage out of it and for once thought of the national interest?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend as usual, is being too optimistic in expecting any responsibility from the Opposition, who have so far supported every inflationary wage increase and who are now, through the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, doing their best to destroy sterling. If the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with his right hon. Friend, let

him stand up and say so. Otherwise let him take the responsibility. We all know the notorious record in prophecy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who said that a Conservative Government would mean conscription and was proved absolutely wrong.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman might list some of the inflationary wage increases which we have supported. What we have done, as he knows, is to condemn the whole failure—[Interruption.]—of the industrial relations policy. [Interruption.] On the right hon. Gentleman's strictures—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This applies to both sides.

Mr. Wilson: On the right hon. Gentleman's strictures on my right hon. Friend, is he aware that I would take that from anyone except the right hon. Gentleman, who consistently throughout the Labour Government was selling sterling short in his speeches at home and abroad and who, even in his "at a stroke" speech which he wants to forget, threatened the country with devaluation, at the very moment that we were handing over to him a £600 million surplus—which he has frittered away?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, throughout the time I was Leader of the Opposition until devaluation, I stood at that Dispatch Box in every debate and insisted that there was no rational justification for the devaluation of sterling. That was on every occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. As for the balance of payments, it is the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the former Shadow Chancellor who urged the present Government to use up the balance of payments in order to create fresh employment in this country. Now, because of the expansion of the economy which is being achieved, imports of raw materials are using up part of the balance of payments. But the current account is in surplus. Let not the right hon. Gentleman say that it has been frittered away.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must go on to calmer waters.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Speaker: I have considered the point of order put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
On the one hand, we must be careful not to bend rules and practices which have been evolved throughout the years to secure full discussion and to protect the expression of minority opinion. On the other hand, we have to see that what happens is both sensible and understandable.
On this occasion the last two Lords Amendments to the hon. Member's Bill were, without demur, discussed together. Shortly before 4 o'clock, the Closure was moved and agreed to without opposition. A Division was challenged on the first of the two Amendments, but no Tellers were put in. After the required two minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the House agreed with the Lords Amendment.
By that time 4 o'clock had struck, and the House was—to use the colloquial phrase—"caught on the hook" of business interrupted at 4 o'clock. The Question on the final Amendment was not put, although that Amendment had already been discussed. I am criticising no one. What happened was according to Standing Orders.
But, for my part, I cannot see why the residue of interrupted business, provided that it is unopposed, should not be treated in the same way as subsequent unopposed Bills on the Order Paper, five of which passed their final stages last Friday after 4 o'clock. I hope, therefore, that the Select Committee on Procedure will examine this somewhat technical matter.
Meanwhile, I do not believe that the House will be satisfied with what happened last Friday, and I have asked

the Leader of the House to consider the situation.

Mr. Whitehead: The whole House will be very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that courteous and considerate ruling. The sponsors of the Bill concerned, on both sides of the House, will be grateful for what you have said about drawing this matter to the attention of the Leader of the House. If Private Members' time is to be meaningful, Bills must have some chance of proceeding in the manner which was frustrated on a technicality on Friday.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): Like the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead),I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will take note of your suggestion and consider it. For my part, as Leader of the House, I shall, of course, be only too glad to consider carefully what you have said.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class III, Vote 6, Police, Scotland
Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Office.
Class VI, Vote 3, Scottish Development Department.
Class VI, Vote 9, Housing, Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 14, Roads and Transport Services, Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 19, Rate Support Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.
Class VII, Vote 13, Social Work, Scotland.
Class VIII, Vote 2, Scottish Education Department.
Class IX, Vote 11, Royal Scottish Museum, &amp;c.
Class IX, Vote 12, National Galleries of Scotland.
Class IX, Vote 13, National Library of Scotland.
Class IX, Vote 14, National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 14th June].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: On a point of order. I have recently seen your selection of Amendments, Sir Robert, and I have noticed that you have not selected Amendment No. 9 standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends, in Schedule 2, page 20, line 32, at the end insert:
'or
(e) to make any provision for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom, or enabling any such obligation to be implemented under section 2(2)(a) of this Act unless before such obligation arose any proposal by virtue of which such obligation arises has been laid before Parliament and a Committee of each House of Parliament has reported thereto upon such proposal'.
I do not see how this Amendment can conceivably be out of order, as it is in no way inconsistent with the objects of the Bill. Moreover, it represents, within British parliamentary terms, a system of control of the Executive which is similar to that used in at least two other European Parliaments which are members of the European Economic Community.
It seems odd in those circumstances that this Amendment should not be discussed, let alone voted upon, during the proceedings on this Bill. I should be grateful if you could tell the Committee why this Amendment has not been selected.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because it is a good thing that I should make it clear. First, there is no question of the Amendment being out of order. It is not out of order.
But it is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the duty of the Chair to make the selection of Amendments and it is also the unquestioned rule that the Chair

does not give reasons for the selection of Amendments. The Chair is happy to receive representations, and frequently does, from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen about Amendments and tries as far as possible to meet those suggestions.
The right hon. Gentleman had a quick word with me about this the other day, and I have considered it. On taking careful advice, I feel that the substance of his Amendment has been discussed on Amendments Nos. 79, 216, 78 and 4. So on this occasion I am sorry to say that I cannot select the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: Sir Robert, I would join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), urging that you should consider selecting the Amendment. We have not urged this Amendment upon you. Because we have had to make representations to you on so many matters on which you have listened to us so courteously, maybe we overlooked suggesting that the Amendment should be called. I would not like it to be thought that we do not wish it to be called, because we would be very glad if you were able to accept my right hon. Friend's request.

The Chairman: That is where the matter must lie for the present, at any rate. I will think further about it, and if I can tell the right hon. Gentleman anything about it later, I will, but I cannot hold out any strong hope.

Mr. Dell: I am glad that you have said you will consider the matter further, Sir Robert. You referred to other Amendments on which you thought the substance of Amendment No. 9 had been discussed. I think you will find if you compare the Amendments that this is the only occasion on which the House will have the opportunity to examine this specific mechanism for the House to discuss, through the medium of a Select Committee, matters which will eventually be decided through the machinery of the European Community. Unless we have this opportunity we shall have no chance to discuss this method of operation, which is, as I have already put to you, in practice and in operation in at least two other European Parliaments. It would seem to be desirable that we should have an opportunity to discuss that so far as the guillotine will allow us to do so.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. As you have selected four Amendments or groups of Amendments on Schedule 2 as deserving of separate discussion Sir Robert, and as you have been good enough to indicate just now that in your opinion there may be substance in the contention raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), is it not evident in the circumstances that three and a half hours is a ludicrous period in which to expect the Committee to discuss Schedule 2?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this has nothing whatever to do with me. I will think further about the matter of the Amendment without making any promises.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I draw your attention to another Amendment which we would respectfully submit would have been a useful one to have called and discussed while the Committee was dealing with Schedule 1? I refer to Amendment No. 294, to delete sub-paragraph 6. Faced with the sheer difficulty of deciding what to focus upon when we have so much material and so little time, we sought to focus upon the Treaty of Luxembourg, which is one of the treaties defined among the pre-accession treaties in Part I of Schedule 1. Will you consider, Sir Robert, whether that, too, might be included in the Amendments which you have selected for debate?

The Chairman: I do not think I can give the right hon. Member satisfaction here because I have had to rule the Amendment out of order.

Clause 3

DECISIONS ON, AND PROOF OF, TREATIES AND COMMUNITY INSTRUMENTS ETC.

Amendment proposed [14th June]: No. 445, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. Ronald King Murray.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: When I was somewhat rudely interrupted at 11 p.m. on 14th June I was in the

process of quoting an article by Mr. Gerhard Bebr. In all the circumstances, however, it would be right if I were recapitulate the main points I was seeking to make.
First, from the available legal authorities it would appear that the courts in this country will be fundamentally affected by the Bill, which is not what the House has been told on numerous previous occasions by Government spokesmen.
The second point I sought to make was that there was a mass of legislation emanating from Brussels, along with regulations and opinions, which cannot be adequately understood by lawyers, let alone by laymen. Yet, it is clear that individuals as well as corporate bodies and nations will be seriously affected by those regulations and laws, an effect which has not been previously accepted by Government spokesmen.
The third point I sought to make was that the Bill seeks to say on behalf of the Government that the Community law is unlimited, absolute, and supreme. This is in conflict with the situation in Holland, where, notwithstanding the Common Market legislation, it is arguable that a Dutch court can deprive an international treaty of its supremacy, and this is particularly relevant to the self-executing provisions of international treaties. This factor could be recognised in this legislation but it is not, and whether or not the Dutch interpretation of the law is correct—presumably this will have to be decided in the course of time, and it is the subject of disputation among constitutional lawyers—I would have thought the Government were bound to give the Committee some indication of their views about these propositions.
There are very real dangers in all this, and this was recognised in a case decided in December, 1970. In the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case the court stated:
no provisions of municipal law, of whatever nature they may be, may prevail over Community law…lest it be deprived of its character as Community law and its very legal foundation be endangered. The validity of a Community act or its application in a member State remains, therefore, unimpaired, even if it is charged that the basic rights…or the national constitution were violated.
That is a very important legal proposition which should be clearly understood


I would submit that it has not been clearly understood either by members of the Committee or by the country at large. There is a real risk, therefore, that the basic constitutional rights of individual subjects in this country, recognised by the municipal laws of this country, may be sacrificed, and again I urge the Government to let us hear from them on this proposition.
If these arguments are correct, should the Bill not, therefore, contain some guarantee of basic individual liberties in the face of the alleged supremacy of Community law and the proposition which is advanced by constitutional lawyers in the Community that nothing enshrined in municipal law may be allowed to override anything in Community law? This guarantee is not at present contained in the Bill or in the treaty. I submit that very real dangers are lurking here, dangers which have not been widely recognised but have been camouflaged by Government spokesmen throughout the course of the debates.
There are legal concepts in this country which will be uprooted, legal concepts which have been honoured by time and have proved to be valid. It is right to draw attention to these factors, and I hope that the Government will not ride roughshod over these arguments as they have over so many others.

Mr. Neil Marten: I should not be rising to make this short contribution to the debate if I had received an answer to the point I am about to raise when I raised it in a previous intervention. I should like to make the point again because, although it is a slightly technical point and does not really concern entry to the Common Market either way, it is a matter that interests many lawyers and should interest us all.
One of the cornerstones of British constitutional practice is the refusal of the courts to give effect to legislation which is imprecise and ambiguous. That is why Parliament spends so much time dealing with the wording of Bills in Committee—when it has the opportunity, of course. Most Bills are amended by Parliament because Members of Parliament have a different outlook upon a Bill and what it tries to implement. Parliament looks at some of the nooks and crannies in a

slightly different way from the excellent civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen who draft the Bill.
But now the whole body of EEC law is to apply in the United Kingdom, and where it conflicts with our domestic law it prevails, this is a new departure for us. Previously, treaties affecting our domestic law required specific translation into our language and the language of British jurisprudence before they became effective in this country. One example is the United Kingdom's adherence to the 1952 Geneva Copyright Convention, which was totally meaningless in this country until its intentions were carried out by the 1956 Copyright Act.
I doubt whether the courts in the United Kingdom today are capable of giving effect to much of the EEC law and regulations as they are today, if our courts are to continue to operate under the same criteria as they operate under today. As I see it, the Community courts—I prefer to call them Community courts rather than European courts, which Amendment we shall come to later—can give effect to their more generalised and rather vaguely worded legislation because each country in the Common Market has a written constitution to act as a sort of longstop against misinterpretation, and also for the protection of individual civil rights. We have no such written constitution.
Under this Bill, the courts will have to hear cases arising out of the EEC law, and I doubt very much—my hon. and learned Friends may have a different view—whether the courts will listen for long to cases based on some of the EEC law, such as we have seen in our examination of this Bill, and the secondary legislation which we have been discussing.
I can imagine that the Government would argue that all that would be all right because Clause 2(2) empowers Ministers, and, I regret to say, also Departments, to implement the European Communities obligations by Order in Council. But what would be challenged in the British courts is whether those Orders in Council are ultra vires. The European Community regulations are so imprecise as to be incapable of precise and specific implementation, in my view.
For example, Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome says that improper exploitation


by an undertaking in a dominant position within the Common Market shall be prohibited. Among the items deemed to be improper exploitation is direct or indirect imposition of unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions. I do not wish in advance to criticise the bench in this country, but we can almost hear our judges asking counsel, "Can you explain what is 'improper exploitation'? What is the meaning of 'a dominant position'? What are 'unfair purchase or selling prices'?"

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Send it to the Appeal Court.

Mr. Marten: That would be very good business for the lawyers.
The Community courts have not defined those words yet, so we cannot rely upon any Community court decisions. Therefore, I believe that a British court will have to refuse to entertain any action based upon such very imprecise law. It might be different if the litigants had at least an up-to-date Bill of Rights, which we have not, to fall back on to protect their liberty. If we are to give effect to the Common Market law, much of it will have to be made much more precise before it becomes effective—much more precise than the Bill stipulates. I hope that that is recognised by the Government and the enthusiasts for joining the Common Market. Either way, it will be a bonanza for the lawyers.
The Committee must remember that we in Parliament are not the sole guardians of constitutional freedom, though some of us sometimes think we are. The Court of Appeal, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will agree, has recently made two decisions in the interests, as it thinks, of the liberty of the individual. Therefore, the courts are also the guardians of constitutional freedom. We can legislate here ad nauseam, but the legislation we pass will not be implemented by the courts unless it conforms to the existing canons of British jurisprudence as we know it.
Therefore, I hope that when my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replies he will this time comment on the position. I asked him once before, but he failed to do so. Whether or not we want to go into the Common Market, we are here considering a fundamental of

British jurisprudence, which has such a long and historic reputation.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The debate on the Amendments to subsection (1) has been marked by the large number of important questions raised on both sides in an attempt to comprehend the significance and meaning of the subsection. The number of questions emanating from experienced lawyers and skilled parliamentarians reflects the serious imprecision and even the ambiguity of the subsection.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) seemed to think that lawyers like imprecision and ambiguity. The exact contrary is the case. We have always struggled in our legal system towards achieving certainty, which is why we have clung to the principle of precedents, of stare decisis, except for the recent liberality allowed in the House of Lords. In the continental courts the certainty is sought to be established by the codes of laws themselves. We rely, and have relied in the past, on the certainty and clarity, we hope, of the law when Parliament makes it and when the judges propound it.
The subsection is marked above all by its imprecision, when, surely, it is a part of the Bill which should have been made crystal clear and should have given clear guidance to our judges, who will have the unenviable task of giving effect to its provisions. What does it do? It places requirements on our judges whenever they may have to decide
…any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties…".
I am speaking of first instance judges When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was suggesting that a matter should be referred to the court of appeal, he will know that our court of last instance will not have power in this matter. All points of construction must, if appeal arises, go to the European Court itself.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: It was wishful thinking on my part.

Sir Elwyn Jones: That may well be.
The subsection requires the judges, when they have to consider a Community instrument, to do two things—first, to


deal with the matter as a question of law, and, secondly, to decide it
… in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court.
The first leg, therefore, is the requirement that the matter shall be dealt with as a question of law. Normally, foreign law, colonial law, and even the law of Scotland have, except in the House of Lords, to be proved as a fact by skilled witnesses, and to that extent, of course, the judges are given assistance. Here, in considering Community instruments, they will not have that assistance, and they are required, under subsection (2), to take judicial notice not only of the decisions of the European Court but even of expressions of opinion emanating from that court. Therefore, our judges will not have the assistance about Community law itself. What they are required to do is to determine any question of construction not in accordance with our own and well-tried rules of interpretation of Statutes but
…in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) gave us a most illuminating and highly entertaining exposé of the implications of this provision, as he understood it, notwithstanding the presence in the place to which I am not allowed to refer of the Lord Chancellor himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman did so with much courage and much skill. He interpreted the words we are now examining as giving our judges free rein, a bonanza, glorious liberation from the shackles of precedent, a privilege which, as he pointed out, is now only reserved for the House of Lords.
But is this so? Insofar as the words require the judge to act
…in accordance with the principles laid down by…the European Court
I agree with the hon. and learned Member. It is extremely wide. Nor are our judges much assisted as to what that phrase means by what I submit is the quite inadequate and certainly laconic note in the explanatory memorandum dealing with the matter, which says:
Clause 3 deals with the treatment and proof of the Treaties and Community instru-

ments in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom, and makes it clear that questions of their validity, meaning and effect are to be determined in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court.
No doubt "jurisprudence" and application of "principles" are familiar ground to continental lawyers—I use that phrase in no disrespect to their eminence and skill—accustomed as they are to applying their philosophy of law to their codified system of law. But that has not been our approach to the problem, or the approach of our common law or of our judges through the centuries.
Our approach has been essentially pragmatic, and it has been based on the binding force of judicial decisions. In our law and practice we take a far stricter view of the effect of previous decisions of our courts than, for instance, do the French. We regard these previous decisions as binding, and that approach applies no less to precedents which interpret Statutes. Our rules of interpretation of Statutes are strict, especially when the rights of the subject are affected.
What are the "principles" referred to in subsection (1)? Are these principles to have the same status as the actual decisions in a given case—the ratio decidendi—the rule of law applied by and acted on by the courts, or the rule which the court regarded as governing the case? Are they to have the same force as that? One of the features of the jurisprudence of codified systems of law is that judicial decisions need not, and generally do not, have binding force. Yet in the second part of the duty imposed as a mandatory duty on our judges they are also required to determine a matter of construction
…in accordance with…any relevant decision of the European Court",
which would seem to contradict one of the elements in the jurisprudence of the European Court, which does not regard itself as bound by any relevant or previous decision. So our judges are to be placed in a position of intolerable, indeed insoluble, difficulty.
If the requirement of construction
…in accordance with…any relevant decision of the European Court
is to be adhered to—and the judges are commanded to do so—by the subsection—this would seem to be an attempt to


introduce into the code system the doctrine of precedent, and I am not quite sure how these two bed-fellows are to get along together. As I have submitted to the Committee, no such doctrine binds continental courts, least of all the European Court itself.
Why then is it intended that the doctrine shall apply here? Why does Clause 3 saddle our judges with such a doctrine? Is the court of any Community member State restricted in the same way? A German judge of first instance, as I understand it, is free to decide the meaning of Community instruments on the basis of his own judgment, of what he thinks right, unfettered by
…any relevant decision of the European Court.
I would like the Solicitor-General to tell us whether that is right or not. Will the English judge of first instance be equally free? If he is equally free, however, to apply his own mind unfettered by precedent, will he not be throwing overboard his mandatory duty under the terms of subsection (1) to follow and decide the matter
…in accordance with…any relevant decision of the European Court"?
It places, as I have said, a judge in England in an impossible situation.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The European Court is not bound by precedent. Suppose that in 1975 the European Court decides a case in one way and the following year it decides a case that is on all fours with the first in precisely the other way because it is not bound by precedent. Which case does the English law follow?

Sir Elwyn Jones: Presumably if the judge's task came in point of time after the latest decision of the European Court he would be expected to comply with that decision.

Mr. Tuck: Necessarily?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I would have thought so, yes. It is not unknown even for courts in this country to change their minds—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Sir Elwyn Jones: —on matters of fact as well as of law.
One of the matters which disturbs me about what seems to be contemplated, and I say this cautiously because there is a good deal of fog about it, is that of course the European Court can change its mind but if our judges are to be deemed bound by the Court's decisions, then our own courts will be deprived of the opportunity of anticipating, so to speak, the pending changes in the law which might be propounded by the European Court and thereby of making their own contribution to the evolution of a sensible body of Community law. Those are the matters of importance, and, I readily concede, of difficulty, which are not resolved by the terms of this subsection which goes to the very root of not only our judicial but our parliamentary sovereignty.
A parallel difficulty which has been much discussed is: what is the position if the Bill becomes law and a future Act of Parliament is passed which conflicts with some aspect of Community law? This question was raised I think on Second Reading by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and for my part I am by no means satisfied with the answer we have had from the Government. The approach of our own judges in somewhat parallel situations up to now has been clear. If a Statute is clearly inconsistent with international law or the law as to comity of nations, it must be so construed in our courts, and is so construed in our courts, whatever the effect of such a construction may be. The Statute prevails, and the international law and the considerations of comity fall.
The classic exposition of the approach of our judges was made by Viscount Simonds who is a former Lord Chancellor, in the case of Colles Dealings v. IRC reported in 1962 Appeal Cases when he said:
It is said that the plain words of the Statute are to be disregarded…in order to observe the comity of nations and the established rules of international law. I am not sure on which of these high-sounding phrases the appellant company chiefly relies. But I would answer that neither comity nor rule of international law can be invoked to prevent a sovereign State from taking what steps it thinks fit to protect its own revenues from gross abuse, or to save its own citizens from unjust discrimination in favour of foreigners. To demand that the plain words of the Statute should be disregarded in order to do that very thing is an extravagance to which this House will not, I hope, give ear.


That has been the classic approach of our judges repeated many times before and since.
If the Bill becomes law will our judges, despite the words of Clause 3, be equally free to deal in that sort of way with a situation if there is a clash between a later Act of Parliament and the law of the Community? As I understand it from the speeches by the Government spokesmen, the Government think not. Certainly the European Court thinks not, and the matter has been put clearly by the Court in 1964 in Costa v. ENEL in words which I think have already been quoted but part of which I will repeat. These words come from the judgment:
The transfer by member States from their national order in favour of the Community order of the rights and obligations arising from the Treaty, carries with it a clear limitation of their sovereign right upon which a subsequent unilateral law incompatible with the aims of the Community cannot prevail.
4.15 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy has appeared to blow hot and cold on this matter. In one breath he has said "That is perfectly all right; we accept that". He has said more than once that directly applicable provisions of Community treaties ought to prevail over future Acts of Parliament insofar as they may be inconsistent with them. Yet in almost the same breath he has said "Of course nothing in this Bill breaches the sovereignty of Parliament".
The result is that our judges will be in a hopeless situation. The Clause gives them no guidance. The Minister's guidance will not be before the courts and that may or may not be a good thing in the circumstances of its ambiguity. How are the judges to decide this matter? Are they to be free to overrule Community law in the light of a new Act? The subsection does not resolve that dilemma, neither do the speeches of Ministers.
Because of this and the many profoundly important unanswered questions which emerge from our consideration of this subsection, in my submission the only safe course for Parliament, the country and the courts is for subsection (1) to be left out. I greatly hope the Committee will agree.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: One always follows the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) with the closest attention and respect. As one listens to that musical voice and the reasonableness with which he puts forward his argument one is lulled, not, I must say, to sleep, but into acquiescence with a case so reasonably presented. Nevertheless, there are some fundamental flaws, if he will allow me to say so, in his approach to this extremely complicated problem.
The right hon. and learned Member has addressed a number of rather technical questions to the Treasury Bench, and I must leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to give an authoritative reply. The right hon. and learned Member does not want to hear my opinion on these issues; he obviously wants the official reply. I will, however, venture into this minefield which has blown up those more learned in the law than myself.
I am encouraged to do so not by my efficiency in the practice of the law, because my practice in the law took place a long time ago, but because in my academic work as a lawyer I was particularly concerned with constitutional law and the law governing the interpretation of Statutes and of treaties.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South based his case on a complete dichotomy between the continental system of law, the code system, and our own. According to the picture which the right hon. and learned Gentleman painted—I must say it was attractive—the continental courts operate purely on code provisions. There is clarity, certainly and consistency there, whereas we have to meander through the maze of precedent trying to find our way as best we can.

Sir Elwyn Jones: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: When I have finished my description of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech I will give way. It was a contrast between the laws of the Medes and the Persians, on the one hand, representing the laws of continental countries, the tablets of stone that came down from Mount Sinai, and a system of the utmost flexibility, on the other, but given a backbone by precedent.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is allowing himself to be blown up prematurely in the minefield. I did not caricature the position in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said he will find that to be the case.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have not been blown up. Perhaps a mine has blown up, but I have escaped unscathed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's gentle explosion.
The English system of law is not as governed by precedent as the right hon. and learned Gentleman made out. Nor is the continental system of law so free of precedent as he made out.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his case away almost entirely—I hope I quote him correctly—when he said: "It is not unknown for courts in this country to change their minds". How do they change their minds? They change their minds by the lawyer's art of distinguishing between one precedent and another. That art of distinguishing heavily reduces the binding force of precedent, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman places so much importance. It is right that that should be so. After all, the law is a living and flexible system; it is not rigid and given for all time.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) far underestimated the skill of our judges. The hon. Gentleman also misrepresented the rôle of judges in our system of law. That error was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). The rôle of judges in our law is not slavishly to follow precedent but to create law. The Clause gives new material to our judges to create new law. That, after all, is how the common law was created in the first place.

Mr. Michael English: Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West) indicated dissent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) shakes his head. That shows a lack of knowledge of history. It does not refute the argument I am presenting.

Mr. English: Do not be so arrogant.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt he should rise to his feet and not shout things across the Floor of the Committee.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is being arrogant.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The common law was created—[Interruption.] I have every intention of keeping going, because I have an argument to develop. I shall not be put off by the sedentary and horizontal interruptions coming from the other side of the Committee.
The common law was created by a fusion of the cannon law of the time and the Anglo-Saxon custom. It is precisely that situation that we are seeing again in another form now. We are seeing a fusion of our system of law with the system of law of the European courts. It will be the function of our judges to weld these two systems together, certainly changing our law, contributing to a new body of law in this country and to a new body of European law at the same time.
We must see this as a creative opportunity as well as a defence of our institutions. This negative theme, which has run through all our debates on the Clauses, has been present in the speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who regarded this whole matter not as an opportunity for the extension of British law but as some kind of attack on our institutions.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful and most honoured that my hon. Friend should have mentioned me. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will recognise that under Clause 2(2) a Department can make a regulation. If a Department made a regulation based on some fairly vague piece of law from the Community, would he, if he were practising at the Bar, accept a brief to try to prove that the Department was ultra vires in making that law because of the lack of definition of Community law?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a hypothetical question. I understand that it is the duty of all members of the Bar to take briefs which are offered to them and to put forward their arguments irrespective of their assessment of the cause


involved, so the question is totally irrelevant.
I return to my argument from which unsuccessful attempts were made to deflect me. I turn to the rules on the interpretation of Statutes. Again the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the former Attorney-General, presented this as a process of loss rather than gain, as though the principle of interpretation of English Statutes had reached perfection and was given for all time. That is not so. In many ways we want a more flexible approach to Statutes than we have had in the past. For example, the rule of continental jurisprudence, that travaux preparatoires are admissible, has never found favour in English law. This has been a loss to our law, not a gain. Often the will of Parliament has not been able to be given effect to by the judges precisely because they could not look and see what Parliament intended in passing a particular Statute. So, here again, something would be gained, something would be added to our law, not lost.
I turn from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying—

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Surely one of the disadvantages of the doctrine of les travaux preparatoires is that it leads to uncertainty in the law. If one is able to interpret the law according to the natural meaning and the context of the words in the Statute there is a reasonable chance that people will arrive at the same interpretation. If one can interpret the Statute only by looking at the travaux preparatoires, that must lead to a much greater ambiguity of interpretation and many more contested views of what the law actually is. Is not that a disadvantage.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I pay great attention to the words of my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the classic argument that is put forward for excluding travaux preparatoires, but I do not think it is a valid argument. The travaux preparatoires, provided they are reasonably interpreted, may cast light precisely on what is uncertain in the words of the Statute. Either with or without travaux preparatoires, there must be a great deal of uncertainty in the law; there always will be. Had there been no uncertainty

in the law, my right hon. and learned Friend and others would be totally unemployed.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman say what kind of travaux preparatoires—that is to say, reports of preliminary and preceding discussions—he has in mind which would be helpful in this context? Is he referring to the deliberations of the Commission—which I think are in secret—the discussions of the Council, the discussions of the European Assembly? The "preparations" of whose "travaux" has he in mind that could throw light on the difficult problems of interpretation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the translation, which I feel sure was for my benefit, as other hon. Members could be presumed to know what "travaux preparatoires" means. I do not confine myself, to any particular category, but, clearly, one category of travaux preparatoires is the debates in the Assembly.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I cannot give way any more; I must continue my argument.

Mr. English: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? He has just referred to the debates in the Assembly, but the Assembly has no power of decision.

The Chairman: Order. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was an out of order interruption, but nevertheless I heard it. The Assembly does have powers of decision; in any case where it does not have the power of decision it can give expressions of opinion.
To give an example of travaux preparatoires nearer home, the statement of my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General this afternoon in answer to the important questions put to him by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South is of great significance and would be able to be taken into account if we had a less rigid system of interpretation of Statutes.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in which he made three principal points against this part of the Clause. He said that our


courts would be fundamentally affected by the Clause. I hope I have made it clear that I welcome that. I welcome change, growth and development. Rigidity is an undesirable factor either in the law or anywhere else.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that in the new system of law developed by the Community, there was a mass of regulations which would affect individuals. To take the positive as opposed to the negative side of the argument, Article 173 of the Treaty of Rome extends the rights of individuals and declares that:
Any natural or legal person may…institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
The point of that provision, which is directly relevant to what the hon. Gentleman was saying, is that not only do States have rights under the new system of law but individuals have rights as well.

Mr. English: Great.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The third point made by the hon. Gentleman was that Community law establishes itself as in certain cases taking precedence over municipal law. That is true, and we must accept it, but everyone knew it. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, who was advising the leaders of his party when it was in office at the time the application to join the Community was made, knew that that was an instrinsic part of the Community. If that provision were not in Community law, there would be no Community. It would not be a Community; it would be something different. Therefore, we must accept that a new legal order is being created which will in limited circumstances have a direct impact on our municipal law.
In the case of Costa v. Enel which was decided in 1964 the European Court stated:
The Treaty instituting the EEC has created its own order which was integrated with the national order of the member States when the Treaty came into force. As such it is binding on them. The member States, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves.
So there is within a limited sphere—and nobody has ever denied it—a sur-

render of sovereignty, but there is also a gain. If we are subject to the European Court in certain respects, so we shall have representation on that Court and we shall gain influence over the creation of law within the Community.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central said that our judges would face great difficulty in assessing what the law was. That underestimates the skill of our judges. They will be able to call on technical assessors when their testimony is relevant, they will be able to get an uninterrupted supply of the regulations in the various languages of the Community, and they will be able to adapt themselves to these changes as they have been able to adapt themselves to changes in our law in the past.
The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South was marred by his totally negative approach. I agree that there are reasons and causes for anxiety which we in Committee want to probe, but let us not look only at the difficulties. Let us see the opportunities that are opening up for a new season of development in our law as well as seeing the risks, some of which are real but many of which are wholly imaginary.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): In the course of the debate on this subsection a number of questions have been directed towards me. Fortunately, although the answers will not be exactly exhilarating, I am not at least required to answer all the questions. Some of the broader ones have been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) about the status of the Luxembourg Agreement and the meaning of the treaties have been dealt with in previous debates and do not arise on this subsection.
The general attack on the subsection has been not so much many-pronged as ambiguous. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), in one of his characteristically analytical speeches, said that the subsection was on the one hand draconian and on the other hand otiose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)


described it as, in effect, a further unnecessary invasion of our sovereignty, and I will return later to that argument.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) did not regard it as either draconian or otiose, but he thought that it did not go far enough in making the position clear. That was very much in line with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who posed a number of specific questions with which I shall try to deal, but he did not suggest that it was an unnecessary provision for the guidance of the courts. A provision of this kind is necessary and helpful specifically to give guidance to the court so far as it is possible to do so.
Not all the questions posed by hon. Members on either side of the Committee can be answered by this legislation or any other. The removal of subsection (1) altering the substance and effectiveness of Community law would create uncertainty—at least temporarily—in this country's courts. Perhaps the right hon. Member for West Ham, South would say that it would create more uncertainty than exists at present, but it would certainly be harmful rather than helpful to remove the provision.
The subsection is confined in its formulation to legal proceedings, because it is in legal proceedings that it is necessary for certain practical consequences to flow from the status of Community law as a question of law rather than as a question of fact.
First, there will flow a proposition that there will be no need for expert evidence about Community law. That removes the anxiety expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East about the additional cost that would arise in calling expert evidence on questions of Community law. The more general question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend about a possible extension of legal aid is probably, in the great generality of cases, unnecessary because most of the parties in proceedings before the European Court are likely to be substantial bodies corporate, but consideration would be given to the expansion of legal aid services should the need be seen to arise.
The second proposition which follows from making this a question of law is that Community law will be part of the law administered by United Kingdom Courts—law which the United Kingdom courts, like any branch of our own law, are assumed to know. Plainly, in other fields that assumption is not always well founded but it underlies the operation of any legal system. Advice will be needed from lawyers with suitable expertise in dealing with this branch of the law.
The other practical consequence that follows is that there will be rights of appeal within our own system where such rights of appeal are confined to questions of law and not fact and they will be more readily available in the United Kingdom courts.
I appreciate the point made by several hon. Members about the doctrine of binding precedent. This point was particularly mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). There is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford pointed out, much contrast between the Continental system and the United Kingdom system in this respect even in terms of a judge of the German lower court; though he is not strictly bound by precedent, he is expected to follow it. Therefore, the kind of difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind would not arise.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the chair]

4.45 p.m.

As for the situation which will arise when our courts are dealing with Community law, I would point out that under Article 177 the European Court gives an abstract ruling but does not give a final conclusion of the case. The national court applies this ruling and any application will fall within the United Kingdom rules of precedent. If a Community point of law arises before a United Kingdom court, the principles of the European Court must be followed at that point. The United Kingdom court is free not to follow established European Court jurisprudence only if it has reason to believe that the European Court within its own principles would not follow its earlier decisions. This approach is in line with the approach set out in paragraph 27 of the 1967 White Paper.

The co-existence of Community law alongside our national law is bound to give rise in the early stages to some problems; some questions are bound to arise on matters of interpretation. The United Kingdom courts would normally interpret legislation in accordance with our treaty obligations. They are now being further enjoined to do so in accordance with the principles laid down by decisions of the European Court. If the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South looks again at paragraph 27 and 28 of the 1967 White Paper he will see the practical difficulties lucidly analysed in that document, as one would expect in a White Paper for which he was responsible. He will see that these matters are answered as effectively as they can be in the provisions of this Bill. The subsection serves a useful purpose, and to remove it would create uncertainty, at least temporarily, in our courts.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman deal specifically with one matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and myself? What is the effect of subsection (1) on a decision by a member State of the Community—for example, one of the existing Six—on a question of interpretation of the Treaty? Is that to be regarded as foreign law or as Community law within the meaning of Clause 3(1)?

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be a little patient, he will find that I shall answer all questions which have been put to me—though the point he has raised is an additional one which was not part of my marked-out course.
So far as I understand the position, the principles and decisions to which one would look would be those emanating from the European Court, but in practice if a decision were to be given in a French or German court applying the provisions of the Treaty that would be regarded as a persuasive authority.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Where will an English judge obtain the appropriate French authority? This is a troublesome feature and is one of the problems which our judges will have to face.

The Solicitor-General: Indeed, and that is why one would not normally

expect an English judge to be confronted with a decision of the French courts. Arrangements are being made—in addition to the availability of the Law Reports of decisions given in the lower courts of Community members—for the full publication of decisions so far given in the European court. That will be the corpus to which our courts will have to have regard. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect the occasional cases in which he has been engaged, as I have, in the fastnesses of Wales in which we have taken along with us a Canadian, Australian or New Zealand report which we thought to be relevant to our point. Whether the learned judge throws his hat in the air with delight at the appearance of such a persuasive authority is open to question, but the matter would be dealt with in a practical way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) seeks by Amendment No. 135 to change the name by which the court is referred to in this legislation. I cannot see how the Committee can accept that Amendment, nor do I see why the case was put in the way in which my right hon. Friend put it. We are here dealing with the European Communities Bill and the European Court has always been referred to by that name—and it was certainly so referred to in the 1967 White Paper. The only other court with which it could be confused is the Human Rights Court. The description "European Court" is in general use, it is convenient to use the customary name and it would be misleading to take a different view.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East asked a number of questions about the inclusion of the word "instrument" in Clause 3(1), contrasting it with the word "act" in the treaty and also with the appearance of the word "act" in Clause 3(2). The word "act" means a formal action in the exercise of executive powers. Such an act is not necessarily embodied in an instrument emanating from a Community institution. For example, the fixing of a date, the fixing of wages or the fixing of appointments could amount to a Community act. Written evidence of such an act might well be needed to be


put in evidence under Clause 3(2), but it could not give rise to questions which could arise under Clause 3(1).
All these follow from the nature of Community law, which has been expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East acknowledges them to be necessary if we are to have a Community at all. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) regards them as undesirable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West regards them as undesirable and unnecessary, and especially unnecessary in this form.
The way in which my right hon. Friend seeks to approach the question of form, looking at what he said at column 1648 when we last discussed this matter, is the argument that we should make Community law expressly the law of this country in the way that the rest of the law of this country is made. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend means that we should do that by the interposition every time of the normal parliamentary process. With respect, that is founded on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the need arising from the treaties and the nature of the law flowing from the treaties.
The nature of Community law is that it should be a single system of law, singly propounded by the institutions of the Community and singly interpreted in the last resort by the European Court of Justice. It should not be filtered or translated in different forms by means of national legislation. It is a separate system of law taking effect alongside national systems. Thus a United Kingdom court may not directly invalidate or declare invalid a Community instrument. But it may do so if the issue of validity arises indirectly in proceedings before it.
The question of the vires of a regulalation or decision under Article 86 is a matter which could be raised by the person against whom it was being launched in our courts, and our courts would make a decision about it in the light of the principles laid down by the Community court. But the Community court would be the final arbiter.
In course of that interchange between the two systems, we shall derive some benefit from our experience of the way in which continental legal systems work. But our courts will make their own important contribution to the absorption of the jurisprudence of the common law into that of the European court. There will be a useful cross-flow of thought—

Mr. Powell: Are not directives and decisions just as much Community law as regulations?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, certainly. But directives and decisions are directed to and binding upon member States and give rise to a Community obligation which can then be translated into our law by means, for example, of Clause 2(2). But the proposition about regulations, decisions of the Commission under the restrictive practices Articles, 85 to 87, and decisions of the court are all part of a separate single system of law designed to have effect alongside the national system within each member State. This is the meaning of the much used and repeated phrase "directly applicable". It is something which applies directly in each of the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom alongside each of the three systems, and, in case of conflict, taking precedence over the law of each of the three jurisdictions within this country.
I do not want to go back to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South about the possible conflict between Community law and United Kingdom law. However I will answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West that Community law would prevail over a prior United Kingdom provision before the consequential changes in United Kingdom law were made. But Community law of that kind is not made at short notice. We expect authentic English texts of applicable regulations to be available. As for subsequent United Kingdom legislation and the effect of that alongside Community law, the position remains the same as it was at the time of the 1967 White Paper, which was written three years after the decision in the Costa case, and I answered it at col. 1320 of our debate on 13th June.
When I say that Community law takes precedence over each of our three jurisdictions, it will be applied by the judges of our three systems. The United Kingdom judge at Luxembourg will make his contribution conscious of the tripartite character of the United Kingdom legal system, and directly applicable Community law applies here in respect of procedures, for example. That answers the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, about Article 177. That Article takes effect directly in this country. Where our courts need guidance as to the procedure to be followed that will be made available in rules of courts. In the same way, judgments and decisions take effect directly in this country, including any judgment which might be given as to the meaning of "judicial remedy" in Article 177. I do not dissent from what my right hon. and learned Friend said about it. All these matters take effect directly here.
As for the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, execution of a judgment or decision of a Community institution, when it has to be enforced in this country, can be stayed or totally suspended only by the European court under Article 192. As to the method of execution, including the nature of instalment orders, for example, that can be decided by the United Kingdom courts, and regulations are directly applicable in consequence of the words of Article 189.
I come back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. There is no room for any options as to the necessity for securing the result secured by Clause 2(1) and supported by Clause 3(1). Direct applicability means what it says. It means applying directly.
I go back to the description of it given in a very important paragraph in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, on 8th May, 1967. Every word helps to understand the proposition. Referring to the European Communities Bill, the noble Lord said:
This legislation would include an enactment applying as law in the United Kingdom"—
not as part of the law of the United Kingdom—
so much of the provisions of the Treaties and of the instruments made under them as

then had direct internal effect as law within the Member States and providing that future instruments similarly took effect as law here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1202.]
That is the nature of "direct applicability". It is spelled out in more detail in the 1967 White Paper.
The Leader of the Opposition explained the nature of the law taking effect directly within member States and said that
membership of the Communities involves a vesting of legislative and judicial powers, in certain fields, in the Community institutions and acceptance of a corresponding limitation of the ordinary exercise of national powers in those fields."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1088.]
That is what direct applicability means. That is what it was explained then as meaning at the beginning of the debate, at the conclusion of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West along with the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South voted in support of the application to join the Communities on those terms.
They are entitled to say, in so far as they have, that they have changed their minds. My right hon. Friend is entitled to say that he does not like what is involved. But I suggest that he is not entitled to criticise the Government for achieving what is necessary to produce this novel but important feature of the Community institutions, namely, direct applicability of the law made by the Community institutions.
The approach suggested by my right hon. Friend, namely, separate re-enactment by Parliament of each bit of Community law is not only in breach of the Treaty obligations but is wholly contrary to the best interests of Parliament itself. In a characteristic article my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said in The Times on 23rd July, 1971:
No doubt in Britain they"—
that is the Community regulations—
would be dressed up as Statutory Instruments to clothe the nakedly supra-national reality with a mini-skirt of seemingly constitutional propriety.
It is that which the Bill does not adopt, which nobody thought that it should adopt, which my right on. Friend is urging upon us.
The result of that kind of approach would be to involve Parliament on a


substantial scale in the obligatory yet inadmissible and unnecessary manufacture of legislative mini-skirts and to divert Parliament in the last resort from the important and continuing exercise of parliamentary sovereignty in the context of membership of the Communities of control of our Executive and through that of Community law-making institutions.
That is the way in which the Clause helps our courts in their application of Community law explained in that way. The Clause—and in particular the sub section—is a useful and necessary part of the legislation to give effect to our Treaty obligations and to provide for direct internal effectiveness of Community

law, and the removal of either part of the subsection would be positively unhelpful. So much, I think, was acknowledged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. So much, I think, was acknowledged by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. In each of their cases it may not go far enough to answer all the questions which could arise, but to remove it would be irresponsible.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 266, Noes 281.

Division No. 227.]
AYES
[5.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnett Guy (Greenwich)
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Biffen, John
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ewing, Harry
Kaufman, Gerald


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony
Kinnock, Neil


Booth, Albert
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lamborn, Harry


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lamond, James


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ford, Ben
Leonard, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)



Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Carmichael, Neil
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lomas, Kenneth


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow. Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harrison Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hattersley, Roy
McMaster, Stanley


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davidson, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Maginnis, John E.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Horam, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Tarry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsden, F.


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Marten, Neil




Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Perry, Ernest G.
Strang, Gavin


Mayhew, Christopher
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Meacher, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prescott, John
Swain, Thomas


Mendelson, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taverne, Dick


Mikardo, Ian
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rankin, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Milne, Edward
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Moate, Roger
Richard, Ivor
Torney, Tom


Molloy, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Rodgers, William (Stockton on-Tees)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Moyle, Roland
Roper, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


Murray, Ronald King
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Weitzman, David


Ogden, Eric
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Oram, Bert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Small, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Padley, Walter
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Paisley, Rev. Ian
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stallard, A. W.



Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Derek
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooper, A. E.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cordle, John
Grylls, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gummar, J. Selwyn


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cormack, Patrick
Gurden, Harold


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Awdry, Daniel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Batsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Haselhurst, Alan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hastings, Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, G. B.
Havers, Michael


Benyon, w.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heseltine, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert



Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Holland, Philip


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holt, Miss Mary


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hordern, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Foster, Sir John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Norman



Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fry, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buck, Antony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Hunt, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Iremonger, T. L.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
James, David


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Jessel, Toby


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gorst, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Gower, Raymond
Jopling, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Clegg, Walter
Gray, Hamish
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
Green, Alan
Kershaw, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Kimball, Marcus







King Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Soref, Harold


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith


Kinsey, J. R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Spence, John


Kirk, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sproat, Iain


Kitson, Timothy
Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Nott, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knox, David
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David


Lambton, Lord
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lamont, Norman
Osborn, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M


Lane, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stokes, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Peel, John
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Temple, John M.


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Luce, R. N.
Pounder, Rafton
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tilney, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Madel, David
Redmond, Robert
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walker. Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wall, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, Dame Irene


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
White, Roger (Gravesend)



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Money, Ernle
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Worsley, Marcus


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Simeons, Charles



Morrison, Charles
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Shore: Those of us who glanced at the provisional selection of Amendments will be aware that an unusually large number of debates—no fewer than 18—await us. This is an extraordinarily large number. Having regard to the time—it is already 5.15—to the fact that we have to complete consideration of all these matters by 11 p.m., the fact that we have at least managed to give some

attention, both on the previous evening and in the first part of this afternoon, to Amendments relating to Clause 3, under great protest I shall not move the remaining Amendments to Clause 3 which stand in my name.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 266.

Division No. 228.]
AYES
[5.16 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Sir Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Humphrey
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Burden, F. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Boscawen, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bowden, Andrew
Carlisle, Mark


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Batsford, Brian
Bray, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cary, Sir Robert




Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Coombs, Derek 
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Cooper, A. E. 
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Crouch, David 
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward 
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Lord
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simeons, Charles


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy 
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Foster, Sir John 
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter 
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. 
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Money, Ernle
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trew, Peter


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall, John (Wycombe)

Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles
Wall, Patrick


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Warren, Kenneth


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Havers, Michael 
Normanton, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Hawkins, Paul 
Nott, John 
Wilkinson, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pardoe, John
Younger, Hn. George


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil



Holland, Philip
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner





NOES


Abse, Leo
Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Mendelson, John


Ashley, Jack
Gordon Walker. Rt. Hn. P. C
Mikardo, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. I.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moate, Roger


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Biffen, John
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland




Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King


Body, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Albert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran. Michael


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Horam, John
Oram, Bert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)




Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pentland, Norman


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest G.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)




Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'stle-u-Tyne)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius




Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Ewing, Henry
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Farr, John
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Faulds, Andrew
McMaster, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Fell, Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maginnis, John E.
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marten, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tuck, Raphael







Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Urwin, T. W.
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Varley, Eric G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Wainwright, Edwin
Whitehead, Phillip
Woof, Robert


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitlock, William



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Watkins, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

DEFINITIONS RELATING TO COMMUNITIES

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move, Amendment No. 450, in page 20, line 1, leave out from 'means' to end of line 2 and insert:
'a written document having legal effect issued by a Community institution acting within its powers'.

The Temporary Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee if with Amendment No. 450 we discussed Amendment No. 451, in line 3, leave out from first 'obligation' to the end of line 5 and insert:
'includes enforceable Community obligations within the meaning of section 2(1) of this Act, obligations created by or arising under directly applicable Community law, and other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties which are enforceable in law'.
and Amendment No. 54, in line 4, leave out:
'whether an enforceable Community obligation or not'.

Mr. Murray: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to indicate the object of these Amendments, as I see it. First, Amendment No. 451 is similar in objective to Amendment No. 450, which seeks to change the definition of a phrase outlined in this part of the Schedule. Both of these Amendments have it in mind to criticise existing definitions. The first definition, dealt with by Amendment No. 450, is the definition of "Community instrument". The second definition, the subject of Amendment No. 451, is the definition of "Community obligation".
This objective is shared with Amendment No. 54. The drafter of these Amendments undoubtedly intended that Amendment No. 133 should be taken with Amendment No. 54. Unfortunately, it has not been selected, but in order to

see the sense of Amendment No. 54, one has to refer to Amendment No. 133 along with it. It also have the objective of Amendment No. 451, in so far as it is seeking to change the definition of "Community obligation".
5.30 p.m.
It might be convenient if I start at the end and refer to Amendments Nos. 133 and 54. If they were given effect to, it would mean that "Community obligation" was re-defined so that it would read:
'Community obligation' means any enforceable obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties".

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that Amendment No. 133 was not called; nor was it suggested that it should be discussed with Amendment No. 450, the Chairman's reason being that it is out of order.

Mr. Murray: Thank you for your guidance, Sir Alfred. I am not concerned to dispute any of that. I merely wanted to show the sense of the Amendment. Whether the Amendment is in order or out of order, we must consider the sense of it and then consider whether the jurisdiction that we can apply as a Committee is to be exercised for or against the Amendment selected. The sense of the Amendment is to seek to redefine "Community obligation" so as to make it clear that it applies only to enforceable Community obligations. That we are not allowed to do, for reasons of order. It is not for me to discuss the propriety of that or the desirability of our debate being restricted in that way. As matters stand, therefore, when we come to make an executive decision on the Amendment, the only choice we have is to decide for or against Amendment No. 54, bearing in mind that it was part of a process of trying to narrow the description of "Community obligation" so as to make it restricted to obligations which are enforceable and to exclude all others.
I will turn now to Amendment No. 451 and say how that is distinct from the objective of Amendment No. 54. The main point of Amendment No. 451, which I think is in order—I am happy that it is—is to seek to give a definition which is instructive and informative and which gives guidance as to what "Community obligation" means. It takes up within it the point that Amendment No. 54 seeks to bring out with the difference that, whereas Amendment No. 54 seeks to narrow the definition, Amendment No. 51 simply seeks to make the definition one that is comprehensible and that can be applied. Underlying it is the criticism that "Community obligation" as at present defined is unilluminating and gives no guidance.
With that preamble I will return to Amendment No. 450 and present shortly the argument in favour of it. In a previous debate the question of the meaning of "instrument" was raised. The reference is HANSARD, 14th June, 1972,c. 1615, towards the top of the column. In saying what is there recorded I hoped to get an answer from the Solicitor-General to the question I put; but that was one of the questions that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will take this opportunity of dealing with that precise point.
At the top of page 20 of the Bill "community instrument" is defined as meaning
any instrument issued by a Community institution".
This does not give any guidance or information, because we do not know what an instrument is. That is the word which needed to be defined. It was not necessary to define "Community" there. That is defined in Clause 1. What was needed to be defined in the Schedule was the meaning of "instrument". This has not been done.
Amendment No. 450—I can leave the point after stating it this boldly and simply—gives a definition and gives a content to "instrument". The suggested definition is that "instrument" should be taken to mean—
a written document having legal effect issued by a Community institution acting within its powers".
It either means that or it does not. If it means that, why not say so? The Com-

mittee may feel that this Amendment could be given effect to in the Bill. If it does not mean that, let the Government say what it means. We suggest that the Government should table an Amendment to give some clear meaning to "instrument" which otherwise lurks in the obscurity which we are beginning to find all too typical of the Bill.
The merits of Amendment No. 450 may be clear to the Committee. The point is a short and sharp one. I leave it to the Committee with the recommendation that the Amendment should be given effect to.
I turn shortly to the argument on Amendment No. 451 and to some extent, naturally, I shall touch upon the merits of the argument that no doubt lies behind Amendment No. 54. The definition of "Community obligation" in line three on page 20 reads as follows:
'Community obligation' means any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties…".
Why make such a devious use of the English language? I should have thought that it would be more natural and idiomatic to have said "'Community obligation' means any obligation created by the treaties"—[Interruption.] I think that the simplest way of making the point is by referring to Amendment No. 451, because the language of that Amendment makes the point with complete precision. The last two lines of the Amendment uses wording which should commend itself to the normal speaker of idiomatic English. The reference is to
obligations created by or arising under directly applicable Community law, and other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties…".
That phraseology is greatly preferable to this rather odd analytical approach of talking about
created or arising by or under the Treaties
detaching the natural connection between "created" and "by" and the natural connection between "arising" and "under". Each verb has been detached from its suffix and the result seems to be an unfortunate and non-idiomatic use of English.
However, that was an aside. It is not a matter of importance. It is simply a matter of intelligibility, but intelligibility of itself is important. The object of the


definition is presumably to make what it contains more intelligible.
Therefore, when one looks at the meaning of "Community obligation" one wants to see what it is intended to include. I come to the germ of the argument. This is the gist of the debate on the Amendment. The object of the amendment of the definition is to include in the definition of "Community obligation" enforceable Community obligations and also other obligations which are not enforceable Community obligations.
If this meant that a clear class of obligations was being defined, it might be of some assistance to the Committee and to the general public who will have to read the Bill if enacted. The first difficulty that arises with terms like "enforceable Community obligation" is that clearly they stem from Clause 2(1) which has been the subject of extensive debate and there has been considerable criticism in the Committee in the wording of that subsection. The first line of Clause 2 on page 2 contains a reference to
All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations…
So there is a reference to "obligation". In line 31 we get for the first time the combination of the words "enforceable" and "Community"; the expression "enforceable Community right" is defined in these words:
'enforceable Community right' and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this subsection applies".
These words are not without their obscurity, but I take it that they are intended to include, for example, the sort of obligations that are mentioned in the first line of the subsection, at line 24 of page 2. Presumably the obligations referred to there would be enforceable Community obligations, and the expression "enforceable Community obligation" would be a "similar expression" for the purposes of Clause 2(1) where it says at the end of the subsection:
the expression 'enforceable Community right' and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this sub-section applies.
It is unfortunate that a degree of circumlocution is needed to try to explain what is required, but this circumlocution is imposed by the wording in the subsection. In line 3, on page 20, there is the defini-

tion of the term "Community obligation''. The definition proceeds:
any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties, whether an enforceable Community obligation or not.
"Community obligation" must at least include obligations arising under Clause 2(1). So we must consider what other Community obligations may be included. But before dealing with that we have to consider whether there is such a thing as an "enforceable Community obligation". The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested that because of the wording in the Treaty of Rome and the wording in Clause 2(1), that is a null class, and that there are no enforceable Community rights and no enforceable Community obligations.
The words used in the treaty are "directly applicable rights" and "directly applicable obligations". There is the risk therefore that if the wording of Clause 2(1) is applied it may mean that there is no content to the category of "enforceable Community obligations". Perhaps it is a null class, a class that is described but has no content. For that reason Amendment No. 451, which seeks to help the Government, to try to give some content to the words they have put in the definition part of the Schedule, supplies in the words following "Act" at least a category which obviously has some content.
The Amendment first spells out what the Government must be implying in the Bill, that is to say that "Community obligations"
includes enforceable Community obligations within the meaning of section 2(1)".
If that is what they mean I cannot imagine why they did not say so, because it would have given some guidance. The words I have read out are subject to the criticism that there may be no such rights, no such obligations and nothing to fill the content of the class thus described. The words that follow "Act" then say
obligations created by or arising under directly applicable Community law
and if the Treaty of Rome is applied to the circumstances of the Bill, it will be found that there is content for that because the treaty sets up obligations that are directly applicable, particularly in Article 189.
It is not without interest that the Bill uses the terminology "directly applicable" in later Clauses but for some reason the term is not used in Clause 2. Amendment No. 451 should therefore commend itself not only to the Committee but to the Government because it seems to say in precise terminology what the Government are trying to say in rather less precise terminology.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

5.45 p.m.

We are seeking to be helpful in trying to give the term "Community obligation" some content and we must ask what other obligations can reasonably be comprised within this definition. The last of the three elements of the suggested definition in Amendment No. 451 reads:
other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties which are enforceable in law.
It is, astonishing that the definition in the Bill,
'Community obligation' means any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties, whether an enforceable Community obligation or not",
would appear to cover obligations which are not enforceable in law. This is a tall order. What obligations are we thinking of? Are promises, letters, casual letters and unilateral undertakings to be included? We should have wanted to restrict the definition in some reasonable way to make it clear that it is intended to be restricted to obligations which are enforceable in law, even though they are not "enforceable Community obligations".

Again, the Amendment seems to be very reasonable and I shall be interested to see what possible objections the Government have to it. With Amendment No. 451, the Opposition are being highly constructive and for the reasons I have given I commend the Amendments.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I do not believe that any lawyer in this Committee, and I doubt if any layman in this Committee, would disagree with me when I suggest that the simpler the language of drafting the more likely is the Bill, when it becomes law, to avoid difficulty when it comes before the courts

for interpretation. The Amendments we are discussing, in my respectful submission, err in that first and fundamental respect that they seek to substitute for the perfectly clear language of the Bill language which is infinitely more complex and which would lead to far greater difficulties when the Bill comes before the courts for interpretation.
The first stumbling block, as I understand it, which was adumbrated by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) when he dealt with Amendment No. 450 to that part of Schedule 1 which says that an instrument means any instrument issued by a Community institution, was over the word "instrument". He suggested that the word "instrument" was vague and was likely to cause great difficulties of interpretation. I hope I am not paraphrasing him unfairly. I cannot speak for the law of Scotland but the word "instrument" in the law of England has a perfectly clear meaning which has been dealt with and considered in many cases by learned judges.
I was lucky enough to obtain from the Library "Words and Phrases Judicially Defined", Volume 3, by the late Roland Burrows, in which he deals with the definition of "instrument". When I look through that, I cannot see for a moment how the word can possibly cause any difficulty if and when the first definition with which we are dealing comes before the courts. The word occurs in a number of English Statutes. It is common form in contracts, and there are a number of allusions in "Words and Phrases Judicially Defined" to the interpretation which it has received. I hope I shall not weary the Committee unduly if I cite just two or three of them, because they make perfectly plain that meaning which we all know the word "instrument" has in English law.
Under the heading "Instrument" on page 124 of Volume 3, the then Rule of the Supreme Court, LIVA, r. 1, is set out:
In any division of the High Court any person claiming to be interested under a deed, will or other written instrument may apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument, etc.
In a judgment of Mr. Justice Stirling in Mason v. Schuppisser (1899), 81 Law


Times, 147, he dealt with the interpretation of the word as follows:
It seems to me that the word 'instrument' was meant to receive a wide construction, and that it would apply to any written document under which any right or liability, whether legal or equitable, exists. I have no doubt that it was intended to extend, and it has in fact, I believe, been applied, to the construction of such mercantile instruments as bills of lading and charterparties. In my judgment, the written contract for the sale of the lease is a written instrument within the meaning of the rule.
In effect, any written document meant to have legal effect is an instrument in English law.
The same appears in the construction of Section 7 of the Forgery Act, 1913, which provides that a person shall be guilty of a felony who, with intent to defraud, demands any money under, upon, or by virtue of any forged instrument.
In Reg. v. Riley [1896], 1 Queen's Bench 309, page 322, Mr. Justice Wills dealt with the interpretation of "instrument" in that Section, saying that it was
a writing which, if accepted and acted upon, would establish a business relation and lead directly to business dealings with another person. The Court is clearly of the opinion that this letter",
which was the subject matter of that case, a letter seeking money, was an instrument within the meaning of that Section.
Therefore, it can be seen that the word is not one which in English law should occasion the slightest difficulty. But if it were to be defined, as in the Amendment, as
a written document having legal effect issued by a Community institution acting within its powers",
we should be substituting a far less clear interpretation of "Community instrument".
Another stumbling block in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, was in the word "issued", so that it is to be confined around by the expression
a written document having legal effect issued by a Community institution acting within its powers",
I suggest once again that the original interpretation in the Bill presents no difficulties whatever. Plainly, if an instrument is issued by a Community institution not acting within its powers, that is something of which the English court examining whatever came before it, in

whatever cause, would take cognisance. Something which is issued illegally is something which within the law could not be said to be issued at all.
Therefore, to the extent that the Amendment hedges round the original interpretation with those further clauses, suggesting that "instrument" should be only
a written document having legal effect issued by a Community institution acting within its powers",
the additional verbiage is not only unnecessary but tautologous. That which is issued must be issued legally; that which is not issued legally is not issued at all, and would not be held to be issued at all by any court which had to consider a Community instrument within the light of this definition Schedule.
I turn briefly to Amendment 451. Here again the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to substitute for the perfectly clear language of the Schedule, which says
'Community obligation' means any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties, whether an enforceable Community obligation or not",
something which is far less clear. First, instead of "means" there is substituted "includes". If it includes, what else does it mean? To have the perfectly plain word "means", with a clear meaning in the English language, is infinitely preferable. The Amendment says:
includes enforceable Community obligations within the meaning of section 2(1)…,obligations created by or arising under directly applicable Community law, and other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties which are enforceable in law.
All of that is comprehended within the present, much shorter definition, and the shorter definition is all-embracing and conclusive.
For those reasons, I hope very much the Committee will reject Amendment No. 450 and those Amendments which go with it.

Mr. David Waddington: I have been as puzzled as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) by the Amendment. I have wondered long about its purpose. I do not want to repeat what my hon. and learned Friend has already said so eloquently. It is obvious from what he has said that the word "instrument" has been


legally defined on plenty of occasions, and we should not be adding any clarity to the definition if we substituted for that word, which has been legally defined, a far less precise expression such as "written document", which so far as I know is almost incapable of being defined because it is so broad.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves what would be gained if we substituted for the completely clear words of the Bill the vaguer and wider term suggested by the Opposition.
But, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, the matter goes much further, because the Amendment reads:
a written document having legal effect issued by a Community institution acting within its powers".
I cannot understand how on earth an English court could begin to enforce as an obligation on a citizen a written document which it concluded had been issued by a Community institution acting outside its powers. That must be obvious. It must surely be conceded by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) that a Community instrument having no legal effect must be a legal nullity and as a result would not be enforced by any court in this country.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: We have been proceeding very fast under the guillotine and I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend has had time to study Clause 3, because Clause 3 appears, at any rate in subsections (3) and (4), to be designed precisely to preclude a court in this country from addressing its mind to the point at issue.

Mr. Waddington: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would draw my attention to the words he is concerned with.

Mr. Powell: Yes. I am concerned with the words,
Evidence of any instrument issued…
by the Community, contained in subsections (3) and (4). I find nothing there which would in itself entitle a court in this country to look into the vires of the instrument. Indeed, the wording appears to be deliberately designed to prevent the court from doing so.

Mr. Waddington: I would not concede that for a moment. I should have thought that subsection (3) was dealing with an entirely different matter and was solely concerned with the nature of evidence which might be admissible in a hearing before an English court. The subject of vires is not dealt with by Clause 3 at all. Subsection (2), which was the subject of certain Amendments which unfortunately have not been discussed, assists the English courts in allowing them to take judicial notice of certain facts so that the litigant does not have to be put to the unnecessary expense of proving before the court, for instance, the very treaty itself. That is the purpose of subsection (2).
Subsection (3) is a similar provision which merely assists the court and the litigant in pointing out the sort of evidence which will be admissible before the court and might be admissible without further proof. No part of Clause 3 deals with the question of the vires of the instrument itself and no English court can be barred by any part of the Bill from examining whether an instrument on which a litigant relies has been properly promulgated by the appropriate organ of the Community.
I turn now to Amendment No. 451. I would merely say on this that to my mind the wording of the Bill at present—
'Community obligation' means any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties, whether an enforceable Community obligation or not"—
is expressed in that manner so as to make clear that comprised in the expression "Community obligation" are not only obligations enforceable in the courts of this country, but also obligations imposed in this country in international law so far as its relationships with other countries are concerned. So again Amendment No. 451 does not help us towards clarity and would be a restrictive definition of "Community obligation" which would exclude those obligations which undoubtedly are imposed on member Governments by the treaties and yet are not obligations which could be enforceable in the English courts by individual citizens.

Mr. John Peel: I want to address myself to Amendment No. 450. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. and learned Member for


Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) feels that the wording in the Bill does not cover the definition adequately. Far from not doing so, it seems to me to do it very much more adequately, if one looks at the Treaty, than the Amendment, which would narrow the definition so much that we could not fulfil our obligations under the Treaty. I should like to remind the Committee of what Article 189 says, because the whole purpose of the definition of these Community instruments is to cover a very wide range of regulations, directives, decisions, and so on, which can be made either by the Council or by the Commission. Various rules apply to these various instruments and some of them have no binding force whatever in each country. Hence the wording in Article 189,
Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force".
Nevertheless, these are regarded, and rightly so, as Community instruments.
Therefore, it seems to me not only totally unnecessary but quite wrong to restrict the definition of "Community instrument" to something having legal effect. If we were to restrict it in that way, we should not be fulfilling our obligations under Article 189. I believe that the definition in the Bill is entirely correct and entirely within the Treaty and is essential as it stands. The Amendment would not only restrict it unduly but would prevent us from fulfilling our duties under Article 189. I cannot see that the Amendment would help in any way. Indeed, it would definitely hinder. The definition as it stands is entirely correct and covers completely the requirements and duties under Article 189. I hope that the Committee will reject Amendment No. 450.

The Solicitor-General: The Amendments under discussion contain some distinct points which I will try and deal with separately. First, there is the group of points made on the meaning of the expression "Community instrument" and the attempt to replace that expression by the words contained in Amendment No. 450. The answer has been given by my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) and Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and others. The change suggested is unnecessary and might be unhelpful.
The appearance of the phrase "Community instrument" in the Bill as something which needs to be defined is not designed to conceal any great mystery. It is a convenient expression used in a number of places, some of which have been referred to in the debate, and is no more than a shorthand way of referring to what the definition says—
any instrument issued by a Community institution".
There is no mystery or need for mystery about the meaning of the word "instrument". The phrase is merely meant to identify the instrument—namely, one that comes from a Community institution. Perhaps one could almost have done without the definition and, of course, the phrase scarcely needs elaboration.
To elaborate it as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) suggests might produce the wrong result. To give an example, if one were to seek to confine it to an instrument which has legal effect, which is the argument advanced, one would be deliberately excluding categories of instruments which could require analysis in the context of court proceedings, such as an opinion of the European institutions not intended to have direct legal effect. That could nevertheless be an instrument whose validity as propounded could be in question in proceedings before the English courts because in certain cases the existence or non-existence of such a preliminary opinion might be a condition precedent to the validity of the regulation.
One would want to allow for the inclusion of such an opinion in the category of Community instruments although that in itself would not have legal effect in the words contended for in the Amendment. It would be a matter forming part of the legal chain. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member that it is a dangerous and curious thing—perhaps those are too emotive words for me to attribute to the hon. and learned Member—to allow instruments to be floating around if they do not have manifest legal validity and could raise legal doubts is to overlook the fact that Clause 3(1) is the instrument, if I may use the word in a different context, which enables English or Scots courts to determine, among other things, any question as to the validity.


meaning or effect of any Community instrument. No Community instrument not intended to have legal effect could have legal effect, because its validity would be called in question under that or at a later stage or in a different way before the European Court.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made an intervention which I think he will acknowledge was answered by the reply of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. He had suggested that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 allowed an instrument to be admitted in courts in this country and for their validity not to be challenged. He will, I am sure, see that those subsections are merely familiar evidential procedures derived from the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, which says that, all things being equal, one may produce a copy of an instrument without proof of the signature or identity of the man who signed it, but if someone comes along and says that the signature is not correct the court is able to look at the matter and it can be said that the instrument should have no validity until the point has been proved. There is no reason for this elaboration of the meaning of a Community instrument. It has been well founded on the ipsissima verba of the hon. and learned Member for Leith which he used in the debate on the last occasion.
Turning to the more important group of Amendments, which hinge on the meanings to be attached to "Community obligation" and so on, I can best deal with this by looking back to Clause 2(1). I start with the intelligibility point raised by the hon. and learned Member. Although he founded it on the appearance of the words
created or arising by or under
in Schedule 1 he will find that the same words appear in the opening lines of Clause 2(1). I confess, although it is an odd thing to say, that my reaction to these alternative presentations is almost a matter of intuition and how the words seem to go together.
There seem to be two methods of saying the same thing. It is plainly necessary to provide the rights which are created by or arise under the treaty because it is necessary to cover subordinate legisla-

tion under the treaty, by which rights are created. I find no reason to prefer the phaseology suggested by the hon and learned Member.
If we turn to the substance of the matter, the hon. and learned Member drew attention to the definition of "enforceable Community right" at page 2, line 31, and rightly interpreted that to mean that "enforceable Community obligation" is to be construed in the same way so that an enforceable Community right, or enforceable Community power or liability or whatever, are all by virtue of the provisions of Clause 2(1) rights, powers, liabilities or obligations which are created or arising by or under the treaties. In other words, they are all rights, powers, liabilities or obligations which are, in a different and more familiar jargon, "directly applicable". The use of the phrase "enforceable Community right" is convenient only because the word "right" is the first to appear at the beginning of the sentence. I dare say that some sense of draftsmanship and poetry may have impelled them to appear in that order. [Interruption.] I thought that might move the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

Mr. Michael Foot: It is the best joke I have heard today.

The Solicitor-General: We have not been doing very well today on either side of the Committee. That is where the phrase "enforceable Community right" comes from.
6.15 p.m.
If we look at the definition in Schedule 1 of "Community obligation" it will be seen that it is intended in essence to deal with two different kinds of obligation. It speaks of:
any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties".
An obligation created by or arising under the treaties can be an enforceable Community obligation, namely one that is directly applicable within this country to people within this country, or it can be an obligation created by or arising under the treaties, which is effective only upon the member States. "Community obligation" means an obligation of whatever kind, whichever of those kinds it might be, created by or arising under the treaties.
At one point I thought the hon. and learned Member was suggesting that there was no such animal as an enforceable Community right or obligation. I must have misunderstood him because I do not believe he could have been saying that.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The point I was trying to make was the one made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in dealing with Clause 2. The Solicitor-General may remember that he pointed out that literally "enforceable Community right" within the meaning of that subsection meant provisions which without further enactment had to be given legal effect. One is going back to the words "without further enactment". The point made by the right hon. Member was that the words "without further enactment" did not appear in the treaty.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member is really picking up a point made by my right hon. Friend, with which I dealt in our last debate. There may or may not still be room for argument as to whether the phrase "without further enactment" is an adequate way of describing directly applicable rights, but upon the assumption, which can be made now that the Committee has approved the Clause, that this is acceptable, and upon the assumption that the hon. and learned Member believes in directly applicable rights—I do not mean as a matter of religious faith, but as a matter of credibility, in their existence—it is clear that we have to make provision for them. I rather thought that he gave examples of them. A directly enforceable Community right, for example, could be the right of someone in this country to rely upon the fact that the Community institutions had declared an agreement to be void. That would give someone the right to have it regarded as a nullity.
It is on that basis, the structure of the Clause and the Schedule, that I find it difficult to see how the more complicated version of the phrase in Schedule 1 can be regarded as acceptable. It is advanced as a drafting Amendment. It is an attempt, made with kindness and helpfulness of a kind which does not always come from the Opposition in the debates

on the Bill, to help the Government put it in a clearer and more intelligible form.
I am sorry to tell the hon. and learned Member for Leith that the Amendment does not do that. It purports to distinguish between three different types of enforceable Community obligations and in fact there is only one. It talks first of all about enforceable Community obligations within the meaning of Section 2(1). It then goes on to say:
obligations created by or arising under directly applicable Community law".
They are one and the same thing. Clause 2(1) is giving effect to directly applicable Community law. If the third version,
other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties which are enforceable in law",
is intended to embrace some further category of domestic law which is given effect to in this country by virtue of the treaties, one need not bother because no such class exists. The only category of law taking effect within this country is that given effect to by Clause 2(1), namely directly applicable law.
There is no need to have this third version,
and other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties".
If the third group of words is intended to cover obligations that are at least binding in international law as opposed to obligatitons arising in honour only, it adds unnecessary length to what is already inherent in the definition in the Bill.
One cannot have a Community obligation meaning in this context one that is not an enforceable Community obligation,
obligations created by or arising under the Treaties".
One cannot have such an obligation unless it gives rise to an obligation which is enforceable in international law: an obligation is an obligation is an obligation. It is not necessary to use this approach and to say "we exclude moral or non-legal obligations," by which I mean non-international legally binding obligations.
The phraseology of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Leith is merely a longer way of saying,
obligations created by or arising under the Treaties…
whether enforceable or not.
I cannot commend these Amendments to the Committee. I have dealt with the points that have been put in respect of them and I invite the Committee to reject them.

Mr. David Crouch: I can remember the time when I sometimes used to come into this Chamber at the request of Whips and speak because they thought I was a lawyer. This time I have come in because I wanted to hear what the lawyers are saying. Having listened to this debate—[Interruption.] I have heard nothing so far from the Opposition. Unfortunately I missed the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). However, I have been listening to the lawyers on this side and I have been much impressed by the repudiation of the arguments put forward in the Amendments from the Opposition and from some of my colleagues.
It is sometimes helpful that when lawyers take the floor of the House of Commons there should be some observations from someone who is not a lawyer. Sometimes a person who is not a lawyer does not understand what they are talking about and it might be as well to see whether he understands what is being talked about.
Not having heard much from the Opposition in the last three-quarters of an hour to support their argument, about which I can only imagine they do not feel strongly, and having listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—[Interruption.] I am sure there is plenty of time for us to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). We always like to hear the hon. Member, particularly on matters of law. I have not heard arguments put forward from anyone on the Opposition side, and not even in the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), which made me feel that these Amendments are acceptable to the Committee.
Why do we need, as suggested in Amendment No. 450, to have specified and spelt out
a written document having direct legal effect issued by a Community institution acting withing its powers"?
As I read this point in Schedule 1, the matter is made clear. As my hon. and

learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said, "Community instrument"—and the Schedule defines exactly what that is—means any instrument issued by a Community institution. A Community instrument has been properly described earlier in the Schedule. To a plain man that makes much more sense than having to spell it out as the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Leith would suggest.
The same argument also applies to the other Amendments which we are also considering. I always appreciate that when the House is in Committee it should take time not only to listen to lawyers but to see whether there is a gap in legislation that needs to be stopped up, particularly in important legislation of this nature. However, the description suggested in Amendment No. 451 is no better than the neat and shorter description in Schedule 1, which the Solicitor General has argued before the Committee. If I were a member of a jury, I should not have been convinced why it is better to have the phrase "includes enforceable" as set out in Amendment No. 451. I stress the word "enforceable" because it is stressed in Amendment No. 133 which has been put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Why do we have to stress the word "enforceable"? I shall remind the Committee what we are considering in the Amendment, which I do not think is worth much more of the time of the Committee. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must hear me. I am the first non-lawyer to speak apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman also voted for the guillotine.

Mr. Crouch: I hate being interrupted by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He makes such excellent speeches on his own. He is much better when he is on his feet making a long speech rather than making interventions from a seated position. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will not set the hon. Gentleman a bad example by making an intervention from a seated position. My hon. Friend frequently makes good speeches and sometimes his interventions are heard as well. I hope he will not


spoil my speech, which has only just begun.
I put before the Committee the suggestion which is made in Amendment No. 451 that we should insert the following words:
includes enforceable Community obligations within the meaning of section 2(1) of this Act, obligations created by or arising under directly applicable Community law, and other obligations created by or arising under the Treaties which are enforceable in law.
It certainly has not been argued before me this afternoon in a satisfactory and convincing way—I do not know whether other hon. Members take the same view—that it is better than
'Community obligation' means any obligation created or arising by or under the Treaties, whether an enforceable Community obligation or not".
I know that there is a suggestion in Amendment No. 54, in the names of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends to leave out
whether an enforceable Community obligation or not".

I should be interested to hear why my hon. Friends want to stress this point.

Mr. Marten: The fact that it is included as an "obligation or not" is pointless. It serves no purpose. If my hon. Friend goes away and studies it, he will observe that those words are otiose.

Mr. Crouch: I am not convinced by that argument. If I have to weigh the two arguments, I must rest on the more convincing argument by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. As a plain man, a non-lawyer, I have not been impressed by the few arguments I have heard in support of the Amendments. I am surprised that they have been put down. The excellent arguments adduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and the lawyers behind him on these benches should have convinced the Committee that the Amendments should not be carried.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 264 Noes 279.

Division No. 229.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crosaman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamling, William


Allen, Scholefield
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hardy, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Roy


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hilton, W. S.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Horam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Biffen, John
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Body, Richard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Booth, Albert
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
John, Brynmor



Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred 
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ewing, Henry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)



Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cant, R. B.
Foley, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Michael
Judd, Frank


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Russell


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Kinnock, Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lambie, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lamborn, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Latham, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Leonard, Dick




Lestor, Miss Joan
Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ogden, Eric
Small, William


Lewis Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Bert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lomas, Kenneth
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Padley, Walter
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


McBride, Neil
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McElhone, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McGuire, Michael
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swain, Thomas


Mackenzie, Gregor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Taverne, Dick


Mackie, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Pendry, Tom
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee. E.)


McMaster, Stanley
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Tomney, Frank


McNamara, J. Kevin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Torney, Tom


Maginnis, John E.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tuck, Raphael


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Prescott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Eric G.


Marsden, F.
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rankin, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marten, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wallace, George


Mayhew, Christopher
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Richard, Ivor
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)


Millan, Bruce
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Whitehead, Phillip


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whitlock, William


Milne, Edward
Roper, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Moate, Roger
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Molloy, William
Rowlands, Edward
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Alfred, (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sillars, James
Mr. James Hamilton.


Murray, Ronald King
Silverman, Julius





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cary, Sir Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fidler, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Baker. Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fortescue, Tim


Batsford, Brian
Cockeram, Eric
Foster, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooke, Robert
Fowler, Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper, A. E.
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Cordle, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gardner, Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Bowden, Andrew
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Gorst, John


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Gower, Raymond


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dixon, Piers
Green, Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grieve, Percy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Burden, F. A.
Eden, Sir John
Gurden, Harold







Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin
Rost, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David
Royle, Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott, Nicholas


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeons, Charles


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Soref, Harold


Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Speed, Keith




Spence, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Steel, David


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tapsell, Peter


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tebbit, Norman


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Temple, John M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Osborn, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jopling, Michael
Page, Rt, Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pardoe, John
Trew, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kimball, Marcus
Peel, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn J. M. L.
Walters, Dennis


Knox, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Ward, Dame Irene


Lambton, Lord
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Lamont, Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Petet
Wiggin, Jerry


La Merchant, Spencer
Redmond, Robert
Wilkinson, John




Winterton, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Longden, Sir Gilbert 
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woodnutt, Mark


Luce, R. N.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Worsley, Marcus


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


McLaren, Martin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


McNair Wilson, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Hamish Gray


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Shore: I must first draw attention to what must be the most bizarre example yet of the effect of the guillotine on our discussions. The Government in their timetable have allowed the Committee exactly 90 minutes to discuss the whole of Schedule 1 which includes, among other important definitions, all the preaccession treaties to which Britain, if the Bill is enacted, will accede. The Schedule includes the familiar Rome Treaty, the

Paris Treaty, the Euratom Treaty, the Brussels merger Treaty of 1965 and the Luxembourg Treaty of April, 1970, together with about 100 other treaties and agreements concluded by the Communities since they were formed, which the House had never seen and had not been told about until the 10 volumes appeared in February this year.
My right hon. Friends and myself, in discussing Clause 1, sought to turn the pages at least of these treaty volumes but inevitably, in the time available, we had to content ourselves with establishing not


so much their contents as the broad categories and the Community machinery used for negotiating them and future treaties. We learned only a little from those debates, but it was enough to convince us that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and we are glad to see him again—and the Solicitor-General, like hon. Members on both sides of the Committee but perhaps with less excuse, were wholly innocent of their content.
It is against this background of accession to 100 treaties that the Committee and the country should take note of the sheer effrontery of the Government in limiting our discussion to 90 minutes. We have made a considerable effort today to create a little more time to discuss Schedule 1, and that is why we brought to an end as quickly as possible the debate on Clause 3. Under a timetable, however, we can make room to discuss one matter only if we suffer a corresponding loss of time to discuss some other matter.
6.45 p.m.
It is against this background of grotesque gagging that we have decided to concentrate our fire on one particularly unacceptable treaty, namely, the Treaty of Luxembourg, which was signed 10 weeks before the negotiations for Britain's entry began. We have selected it deliberately, for these reasons. First, we wish to make clear the pressing economic objections to the arrangements it contains. Secondly, we object strongly to the power over taxation and expenditure which, under the treaty, the House of Commons loses and European institutions acquire. Thirdly, we have a duty to make clear to those in Europe with whom the Government have made these arrangements, before they have ratified the equivalent treaties of accession, that the Opposition are not bound, and will not be bound, by the terms of the Luxembourg Treaty.
First, I shall not say a great deal on the grave disadvantages of the treaty to us, except perhaps to emphasise that we object to both sides of the Community's budget, the composition of the taxes which are to be raised and the pattern of expenditure which the budget allows. Both are unacceptable to us. The mix of the famous three taxes which comprise

the own resources which the Treaty of Luxembourg and the corresponding decisions enforce—the levies on imported food, the customs duties and the 1 per cent. value added tax—are so absurdly and disproportionately disadvantageous to the point at which, without exaggeration, we are seriously menaced in our balance of payments and, thus, our employment and trading prospects for years and perhaps a decade or more, ahead.
The spending side of the budget is overwhelmingly geared to the problems of mainland farming. It is particularly advantageous to France and Holland and does not serve too ill the interests of any other mainland countries. But the one country which can hope to get virtually no benefit from the Community budget is the United Kingdom,whose farms are so much larger than those of the Community and which are not faced with the problem of immense farm surpluses.
It will not do for hon. Members on the Government side, in their efforts to defend what is indefensible, suddenly to proclaim that they have a social conscience about the plight of poor farmers and peasants in the countries of the Six and thus try to justify the British contribution under the Treaty of Luxembourg as though it was part of a British aid programme to help poorer sections of the European Community. My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself are prepared to help poor people in Europe and in other continents, but the plain truth is that the great bulk of the farm expenditure rewards not the poorer farmer, but the comfortable and affluent.
It has often been said by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when we put to them the gravity of the obligation into which they are entering under the treaty, that it is impossible precisely to quantify what is involved. They say in their disarming way that they are not prepared to play the numbers game. The more I have reflected on refusing to play the numbers game, the more it has struck me that this is rich man's talk. Only the very rich man is not concerned about how much things cost.
It is probably true that in only one year in the whole of Britain's post-war history has it been possible for a Government to engage in rich man's talk


about the numbers game in relation to the balance of payments, and that happened to be last year when, for the first time, we accumulated such a gigantic surplus on our balance of trade as to cause us considerable problems. Need I emphasise to the Committee that our balance of payments problems are coming back? I will not engage in threatening talk about the immediate prospects but during the last five months we have lost our trade surplus. We are not running into the red, but we are back in the position of running just about even on our current account, taking both visibles and invisibles, and we have therefore, as usual, to finance the ordinary requirements of our capital investment, and so on, as we have in the past.

Sir David Renton: The right hon. Gentleman said "as we have in the past", but is there not a difference between the present and immediate future and the past up until the last General Election? Now, all our short-term and medium-term debts have been repaid and we have the strongest reserves that we have had in modern history. So the position is quite different from what it was in the past as the right hon. Gentleman envisages the past.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and I am glad he is right, in that we are not loaded down with short-term or even medium-term indebtedness. That is a great help. But we are talking of serious matters and not trying to make points at each other's expense. We have to think about what will happen when the economy begins to expand. We are only at the beginning of the process, even if expansion is taking place. Expansion has dramatic effects on the balance of payments, and great changes in the order of magnitude of our exports and above all of our imports must be presumed to take place. We must also remember that, while our reserves reflect some genuine accretion of strength, nevertheless they are inflated and swollen by a considerable amount of shorter-term money movements. It is unreasonable to say that the present level of reserves genuinely reflects the actual state of our reserves and our surplus.
Against this we have to set the reasonable certainty of paying out £750 million, which is the Government's estimate of the contribution to the European Com-

munities made by this country across the balance of payments as part of our club subscription in the first five years. That £750 million is the reduced net subscription which for the next five years any Government which accept the Treaty have to find. Over the following five years—and I am not playing the numbers game but giving the lowest estimate I can honestly give—it cannot be less than £2,000 million. It cannot be less than £400 million a year, as anyone who looks soberly at 90 per cent. of our customs duties and 90 per cent, of our food levies plus 1 per cent. value added tax will agree. I have included only the first two and left out the VAT. If those two taxes are paid across the balance of payments in the second quinquennium, as they must be, we shall accumulate an obligation of £2,000 million. That is the minimum sum.
In seriously contemplating paying £2,750 million as a minimum club subscription over the next 10 years, we must address ourselves to the agreement which is embodied in the so-called Treaty of Luxembourg. We cannot dismiss it and say that, because we have this fortuitous, unusual trade surplus and because our reserves are at a fairly high level that settles the matter—

Mr. Dan Jones: On the assumption that we sign the Treaty in January, 1973, when do those charges first become payable by the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: If my hon. Friend will look at the current beige paper on public expenditure he will find recorded there the first Community payment. I do not know whether we shall pay the first year's contribution on 1st January, or in quarterly instalments, but our first year reduced contribution at the very lowest is over £100 million and that takes no account of the additional obligations into which we have entered.
One other aspect of the obligation we have undertaken is that by agreeing to the first moves towards economic and monetary union we have narrowed the bands around which the £ is allowed to move in relation to other European currencies. Having obtained from the Smithsonian Institute the liberalising margin of 2½ per cent. on either side we at once close the doors to 1¼ per cent on


each side by agreeing with the Six to go forward with them into the first stages of economic and monetary union.
This all sounds difficult and esoteric stuff, but it is not. We have seen in the last week the first fruits of this commitment. At the end of this month the cost of supporting the £ against last week's flurries within this narrow band will have to be borne on the reserves. Therefore, we have to look not merely at the subscription to Europe but at all the associated arrangements involved in it which are bound to have a worrying and damaging effect upon the prospects and prosperity of every man, woman and child in the country.
In addition to the economic objection to which I have just referred, there is a further objection which I must put on the record. Britain is a member of many international organisations. We are ready and happy to make contributions to them year after year, so long as we are convinced that the purposes are worth while and that our contributions are fair. What is distinctive about the new arrangements that the Treaty of Luxembourg introduces is that national contributions to the Community budget are to be phased out and the new doctrine of Community's own resources is to come in.
7.0 p.m.
The meaning of "own resources" was brought home to me in a vivid phrase by the Chief Secretary when he said how Community taxes imposed on the British people would "flow" to Brussels and that the revenues did not belong to us—the British Parliament and Government—at all. Clause 5, which we shall discuss tomorrow, makes this clear in relation to Customs duties when it says in subsection (4) that the law affecting the collection of Customs duties will apply in future
…as if the revenue from other duties so imposed remained part of the revenues of the Crown.
That puts the point to the phrase "as if", pretty clearly. So that there can be no doubt what is involved in the Treaty of Luxembourg.
We shall not become contributors to the Communities; we shall cede them the right to impose taxes on ourselves.

That is the meaning of "own resources" as distinct from all the other methods of financing the Community from national contributions which have existed in the past. We have never ceded this right before. We do not think it is necessary for the purposes of the Community if those purposes are limited to the Customs Union and other common policies which the proponents of membership suggest And we shall not have it because we believe the right to levy taxes on the British people is a right which only democratically elected representatives of this country lawfully exercise.
There is an argument, which is somewhat theoretical, that it would at least be consistent with the doctrine of "no taxation without representation" if Community taxes were imposed by an elected European Parliament, in which we were properly represented. But this is not the proposition that is now before us. It is not in the Treaty itself. I am surprised how little discussion there has been of what precisely is in the Treaty of Luxembourg. It is really two documents. One is the substantive change to Article 203, and along with it is a financial decision of the Council of Ministers about which I have been making most of my complaints in my earlier remarks. The Treaty of Luxembourg deals with the machinery and the relationships between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers and the Commission in deciding budgetary matters in the Community.
The one thing that emerges so clearly as to be beyond any doubt whatever is that whoever it is that possesses and determines the use of the Community's own resources, it is not the European Assembly and of that there can be no doubt whatever. Secondly, the European Assembly has distinct features in that it is not merely part of a division of powers within the European institutional framework which inevitably gives it a very weak rôle, but further it suffers from the fact that it has virtually no powers of its own.
We have recently had the report of the Vedel Working Party which was set up to look at the whole question of the power of the European Assembly. That report made some interesting points. On budgetary matters and control of the Community's own resources, its whole analysis is devastating and its prognosis


is not hopeful. What it says is that the Assembly has a kind of power—almostan audit power—over the budget but has no real power in deciding the policies which lead to expenditure. It would be almost true to say that the taxes collected from the member countries under the own resources rule are almost hypothecated in terms of the expenditures which they are designed to finance; the area of freedom in determining how those own resources should be used is minimal. The own resources are already devoted to, and are indeed built into, pre-determined agricultural support policies and this applies to one or two of the minor expenditure items which have been decided not by the Assembly but by the Council of Ministers.
The general verdict about the future of the Assembly in its ability to exercise control over money matters is very depressing. The Vedel Working Party said that it did not think this would advance the cause of parliamentary participation in Community decisions, particularly in legislative matters, and went on:
By its very nature a prolonged institutional crisis resulting from such a refusal"—
a refusal to approve the budget—
would endanger the still precarious progress of Community activities and its outcome would not be attended by the success desired.
I am sure that that is a fair assessment, and it is not as strong and adverse a judgment as that with which we are all familiar from Mr. Dahrendorf, who is one of the Commissioners and who expressed himself strongly about the wholly inadequate democratic powers of the European Assembly.
As things are, and as they are likely to be, decisions about raising resources, taxes and expenditure in the Community are taken by the Council of Ministers and the Commission in Brussels. The area of decision which is clearly and unambiguously left to the Assembly accounts for no more than about 3 to 4 per cent. of the Community budget.
My last point aims at getting clear why we cannot and will not be bound by these arrangements. In past debates there have been a number of exchanges about what was accepted and what was not accepted by the Labour Government prior to the recent negotiations which have just ended. I do not return to the subject for the

benefit of right hon. Gentleman opposite since we have exchanged our views on this matter on a number of occasions. I do so in order that our approach may be understood by those across the channel with whom sooner or later we shall have to deal. There must be no confusion about this matter, nor need there be.
In 1967 when the Labour Government sought to open negotiations it was made abundantly clear that the most serious obstacle for Britain was the burden on our economy and balance of payments which financing of the common agricultural policy would impose. Because of this factor the then Foreign Secretary spoken in The Hague of the need for a financial arrangement which would put a fairer burden on the United Kingdom. He stressed the fact that he hoped we would take part long before the end of the initial transitional period in 1970 as a full member of the Community in the negotiations of the agricultural financing arrangements for the period after the end of 1969. That was one of his main reasons for wanting to get in at that stage, namely that he wanted us to have a position of negotiating from the inside. I am not commenting on that situation but am trying to set it out so that people may know where we stand and where we have stood in the past.
In short, Labour spokesmen then stated their opposition to the Six on the temporary financial arrangements which were then in force in terms of the CAP and looked forward to altering them before permanent arrangements were agreed. It was perhaps the openness of this approach which led the French to resist and seek to veto our application. I always remember M. Couve de Murville saying in Brussels only four days after the British negotiations in 1967:
Britain was asking to re-negotiate from inside the Community. France could not accept this. If the Six were to negotiate with Britain they would have to agree beforehand on the means of financing the common agricultural policy.
So much for 1967. Now for 1970. The French were as good as their word. They insisted at the beginning of 1970 on making permanent arrangements for financing the common agricultural policy which were greatly to their own advantage but grievously to our disadvantage


and which are embodied in the agreements reached and the treaties signed in Luxembourg on 21st April, 1970.
It is wrong to suggest either to Europe or to this country that there was any commitment on the part of the Labour Government to accept the open-ended commitments contained in the Luxembourg Treaty. We had not accepted them, nor did the incoming Government. Certainly they were not accepted in the opening phases of the negotiation. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not accept them. Let us be realistic and frank with each other. We all recall what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say in his opening statement at Luxembourg on 30th June, 1970. He said that unless we could find a solution to this ghastly business of the burden of Community finance on Britain,
…the burden on the United Kingdom could not be sustained and no British Government could contemplate joining.
That was the true position. It was the position of all serious-minded people concerned with the negotiations. Since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends have tried to pass off those words by pretending that they did not really mean what they said and by suggesting that all that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was transitional arrangements, a period of adjustment, and then acceptance of the full unsustainable burden. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman had in mind always roughly what he has now, total acceptance of the Treaty of Luxembourg with just a period for transitional arrangements in which to adjust.
In his first report to the House on negotiations with the Six on 23rd July, 1970, when specifically asked whether we were negotiating just about how long and about how much we had to pay, or whether the negotiations were about something more substantial, the then Chancellor of the Duchy said:
As for transitional periods, I made it clear at the meeting on Tuesday"—
that was in Luxembourg with the Council of Ministers—
…that I was not prepared to accept the view that the only means of solving these problems was necessarily…by transitional provisions.

He went on to say that he preferred to keep open other possibilities including
…that a solution might be found in whole or in part by means other than simply transitional arangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 797–8.]
Those were the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy who was negotiating at that time, not at the first meeting but after the first or second meeting with the Six. That was his position. I am trying to be frank. It was the position. Although we had not ourselves reached that point, it is the inevitable position that any group on either side of the House is bound to take in relation to the Treaty of Luxembourg and negotiations with the Six.
There is no excuse. Something happened. The Chancellor of the Duchy or the Prime Minister undoubtedly shifted his stance and changed his mind. History will tell. We shall await their memoirs, perhaps. I believe that there will be a judgment on them. But I cannot think of any decision in the whole of Britain's post-war history which will cost the nation more dearly than this decision to surrender to terms which are so grievously disadvantageous to us, and it was a decision made by the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Prime Minister—

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Cheer up!

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Shore: It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, "Cheer up!" If he thinks that the present condition of the nation is a cheerful one and that with the prospect of paying not far short of £3,000 million from our balance of payments over the next decade, the outlook for our people will be even brighter, I am afraid that he is living in a world of his own.
The more important point is that people in Europe, too, must understand that there is not now nor was there before any bipartisan support for or acceptance of the Luxembourg Treaty. That is the reality. That is what the countries of Europe have to understand and take into account in making any decision which they may have to make in terms of ratifying these treaties.
We do not accept these arrangements. We shall not abide by them. Lastly, we


shall reject these policies and seek to remove them at the earliest moment that we have the power to do so.

[MR. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Mr. Rippon: We have heard from the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) some general observations upon the Community budget, the subject of resources propres, the basis of our contribution, and the nature of the burden on the balance of payments. It is a speech that we have heard many times before. It is a familiar and misleading theme that the right hon. Gentleman continually lays before the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary dealt with all these matters after a long debate on 8th June, and I refer the Committee specifically to cols. 799–800 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has been no doubt from the outset about the determination of both Governments to accept the basic provisions of the treaties subject only to the negotiation of transitional arrangements. Clearly at an early stage in the negotiations we left as many matters open for discussion as we could. But my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary dealt specifically with the nature of the United Kingdom's commitment on 8th June at col. 805. He said:
It was in December, 1969, that the members of the Community agreed in principle on a new system of financing the Communities, and this was referred to in considerable detail in the Labour Government's White Paper of February, 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 805.]
That again is a matter that we have gone over frequently between us. It has been clear for a long period of time that the general principle of resources propres is known and understood.
The terms negotiated were debated fully by the House when we discussed the White Paper in 1971. The terms were accepted by a majority in the House of 112. There was agreement in principle to our joining the Community on the basis of the terms negotiated. That is clear beyond peradventure.
What the right hon. Gentleman does continually is not to have regard to the statement in the White Paper of 1971 which indicated that our net contribution to the budget, as far as could be judged—it refers only to the "possible net con-

tribution"—might rise from £100 million in 1973 to £200 million in 1977. There are other aspects of the burden on the balance of payments which the White Paper also dealt with in relation to the changes in tariffs on food prices and said that the burden might rise from £5 million in the first year to £50 million at the end of the transitional period.
It distorts the position to say, as the right hon. Gentleman does—he does it to try to strike terror into the hearts of the British people—that there will be a burden of about £3,000 million on the balance of payments over a 10-year period. That is not true, because what the right hon. Gentleman always does is to take some hypothetical figure far into the future and aggregate it on the basis of the largest amount of the net contribution for one year. He takes no account of the other side of the picture. He looks only at the contribution to the Community budget. As we have said frequently, we can only make an assessment about that because the size and shape of the budget will change in the course of the next decade and we shall be concerned to see that whereas the last decade has been concerned with the development of the CAP, we want the next decade to be concerned primarily with industrial and commercial matters, regional policies, and so on. Over a period of years the size and shape of the budget will change.
But apart from that, on the other side of the picture of the economic consequences of joining the Community one has to set our contribution to the Budget against the value to British industry, to the British people and, above all, to the unemployed in this country, of permanent, unrestricted access to a market of more than 300 million people. The White Paper of July, 1971, dealt at some length with this and other matters, and said in paragraph 48:
If we enter the Communities we shall be able to profit from the general advantages of a larger market and, in particular, to play a full part in the development of industries based on advanced technology. If we do not join, we shall forgo these opportunities which the members of the Communities will increasingly enjoy. Their industries will have a home market of some 190 million people, with preferential markets in other European and overseas countries. Our industries would have a home market of some 55 million people, with perhaps another 45 million in EFTA,


as against a home market of some 290 million people we should have if we joined the Communities.
Then there is a long passage, which we have debated at length over and over again, about our assessment of the experience of the Six and the prospects for our economy, and paragraph 57 points out that
if a rate of growth of national income a ½ per cent. higher were to be achieved as a result of membership, by the end of period of five years our national income would be some £1,100 million higher in the fifth year.
If it were 1 per cent., it would be a £2,200 million growth in national income to be set against the contribution to the Budget. Mere increase in national income is not reflected totally in the balance of payments, but in so far as that would be export-led growth resulting from our access to the larger market it would be a substantial contribution to our balance of payments.
It is clear that when the right hon. Member for Stepney makes these out-rageous statements about the burden on the balance of payments he does not carry with him the full-hearted support of the vast majority of hon. Members of his party, except on the basis of a three-line Whip, whether imposed last October, or imposed in the course of these proceedings, because these matters, which we have debated over and over again, have not been raised only by a Conservative Government. They were raised by a Labour Government, and these assessments of the effect on our balance of payments were made by a Labour Government.
It was a Labour Government who envisaged in the first instance that the contribution to the Budget would be balanced to a considerable extent by access to a larger market. Of course, it is a matter of judgment. One can make a reasonable assessment of the burden of the balance of payments in the earlier years, but the further one takes this projection the further one gets into the realm of speculation and, as we said in the debate on the White Paper, this is a matter of judgment.
The fact of the matter is that a majority of the last Labour Cabinet publicly stated that they would have recommended a Labour Government to join the Communities on the basis of the

terms negotiated. There was an absolute majority of the last Labour Government who, either in this House or in the other place, publicly declared themselves to hold that view. I shall not say that it necessarily proves anything with mathematical certainty. All these things are matters of judgment, and in debating whether we should join the Communities hon. Members on both sides of the House, exercising their judgment as Members of Parliament, have tried to strike a balance between what they think are the economic advantages or disadvantages of joining, and the political advantages or disadvantages of so doing. This has to be seen as a whole.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Instead of talking all this rubbish, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the Committee his estimate of the balance of payments advantages which will offset the disadvantages in the first year after the transition?

Mr. Rippon: The White Paper explained all the difficulties of making a mathematical assessment. It is hard enough to make on the basis of the contribution to the budget where the size is changing. Assuming a ½ per cent. growth over five years, the Labour Government's estimate was that that would result in an increase of £1,100 million. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the Chamber because, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was firm in his declaration about the economic advantages of joining the Communities. He said that there would be problems, and that they could not make an exact assessment, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying that if one were to look ahead 10 years one could not think of many problems which would be more easily solved by this country in the economic sphere outside rather than inside the Community.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop confusing national income with balance of payments and answer my question? Will he give us his estimate of the balance of payments advantage in the first year after transition?

Mr. Rippon: I explained to the right hon. Gentleman that an assessment of


the growth in the national income is not the same as an immediate benefit to the balance of payments, but that in so far as that growth was exported as a result of permanent and unrestricted access to a market of more than 300 million people that would be a contribution to our balance of payments. What the right hon. Gentleman must start taking notice of is the way in which already investment is coming into this country because people see the positive advantages of investing in this country and employing people here in order to take advantage of this vast Continental market as the tariff barriers come down.
That is a matter of fact. It has happened in my constituency, and it has happened in constituencies in Scotland. People have invested and opened factories because they believe that within the Community we shall be able to take advantage of this larger market. If some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were to cease their unremitting assault upon the policy and upon the Bill they would find that that investment flow would increase. As soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book, we shall begin to reap the advantages.
I believe, with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that this is not a matter of nicely calculated less or more. I also believe with the right hon. Gentleman that at the end when, as a matter of judgment, we have weighed the contribution to the budget, which will change in shape and size over the years, against the advantages of unrestricted access to a market of more than 300 million people we shall find that

the result of our entering the Communities and passing the Bill to enable us to ratify the treaties will be a positive and substantial contribution to our balance of payments, and will not result in any deficit at all.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned Scotland. I represent a Scottish constituency. Will he tell me which areas in Scotland have had this fantastic attraction to them specifically because of the confidence he says that his Government have engendered?

Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Member will visit the Glenrothes Estate in Fife he will see there a textile factory employing a considerable number of people, and hoping to employ more, which an American company has started because it sees great advantages in having access to the Common Market from a factory based on Scotland where there is available a good labour force and considerable skills. Those are the opportunities which have come in one constituency in Scotland. I could mention others. I know a great American company which has invested in my constituency because it sees these advantages in our joining the Common Market—

It being half past Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN, proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question a redy proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 279 Noes 270.

Division No. 230.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Coombs, Derek


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cordle, John


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkins, Humphrey
Bryan, Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Costain, A. P. 


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, F. P.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carlisle, Mark
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dean, Paul


Benyon, W.
Cary, Sir Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chapman, Sydney
Dixon, Piers


Biggs-Davidson, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Churchill, W. S.
Drayson, G. B.


Boscawen, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Dykes, Hugh




Eden, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus
Redmond, Robert


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lambton, Lord
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Foster, Sir John
Langford-Holt Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fowler, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Le Merchant, Spencer
Royle, Anthony


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Gibson-Watt, David
Luce, R. N.
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McLaren, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gorst, John

Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gower, Raymond
McNair,-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sorel, Harold


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Madel, David
Spence, John


Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sproat, Iain


Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mawby, Ray
Steel, David


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stokes, John


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Money, Ernle
Tebbit, Norman



Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Havers, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tilney, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mudd, David
Trew, Peter


Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Waddington, David


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walters, Dennis


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, John
Peel, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Joseph. Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Allen, Scholefield
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Body, Richard


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Booth, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)


Ashton, Joe
Biffen, John
Bradley, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)







Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth. Sutton)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Dalyell, Tam
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roderick, CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (Nc'tle-u-Tyne)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sillars, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Ewing, Harry
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maginnis, John E.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marten, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Torney, Tom


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wallace, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moate, Roger
Watkins, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Hamling, William
Molyneaux, James
Wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hilton, W. S.
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian



Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

PROVISIONS AS TO SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

The Temporary Chairman: Before calling the first Amendment selected on the Schedule, I would inform the Committee that as a result of representations made earlier, the Chairman has selected Amendment No. 9, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). It will therefore be called after the next group of Amendments.

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. Amendment No. 184 stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who is not present in the Chamber. I do not know whether that means that we shall automatically be allowed to discuss it, but I should have thought that as his Amendment has been selected he should be here to move it.

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment has been selected and it is in order for any hon. Member to move it.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. During the whole debate on this subject only one Amendment has been tabled covering the Ulster Unionist position, namely Amendment No. 444. That Amendment deals with a matter of particular concern to Ulster Members. Would it be in order to discuss that in connection with Amendment No. 184?

The Temporary Chairman: No. I regret to say that I cannot help the hon. Member. The question of selection of Amendments is solely for the Chairman.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Brewis. Am I to take it that hon. Members will not be permitted to discuss a matter of great interest to Members from Northern Ireland when we are discussing the next group of Amendments?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member would be out of order if he discussed that Amendment with one which is now to be moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

7.45 p.m.

Mr. English: I beg to move, Amendment No. 184, in page 20, line 27, leave out
'punishable with imprisonment for more than two years or'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss also the following Amendments:

No. 410, in page 20, line 28, leave out 'two years' and insert 'three months'.

No. 185, in line 29, leave out
'with imprisonment for more than three months or'.

No. 411, in line 30, leave out '£400' and insert '£50'.

Mr. English: Had I been drafting the Amendment, together with its companion Amendment No. 185, I am not sure that I would have drafted it in this particular way. But it is clear that this Amendment and the others we are discussing have a basically simple object.
In drafting the Bill the Government have felt the necessity to limit the powers conferred by Clause 2. In particular they have chosen four ways of limiting it. Those four ways seem to go back, as hon. and learned Members will realise, to discussions which took place before and immediately after the war about the legislative powers that Ministers should have. The four ways, therefore, are limitations on the power of increasing taxation, on retrospective legislation, of conferring further powers to legislate on other people and on creating substantial criminal offences.
It is a pity that the drafting of these limitations has been related solely to the discussion which took place in relation to the law of England in times past, more than a quarter of a century ago. It is a pity because these limitations do not relate themselves to subjects which might come to be the subject of orders in accordance with the Treaty of Rome. For example, there is no limitation on the power of the Government to make an order relating to elections. Yet I should have thought this to be of vast importance. The Treaty of Rome contains a provision that we could have direct elections to the European Assembly but there is no limitation in the Bill on that being implemented by the Government by an order which would not even come before the House of Commons.
I can see how the Schedule has come to be drafted as it is. It is drafted somewhat in line with the instructions we give as a standing instruction to our Statutory Instruments Committee, for example, to report on certain types of order if they are made. But it is a great pity that it has been thought out obviously by an English draftsman in relation to the law of England without considering the peculiarities of the Treaty of Rome.
To take sub-paragraph 1(d) to which all these Amendments relate, the Government have felt it necessary to limit their power to create criminal offences. In effect, they have said that a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years or, if on summary conviction, with imprisonment for more than three months or a fine of more than £400, etc., as the paragraph goes on to say, should not be imposed by mere order unless the Government take some other action, such as an order which comes before the House of Commons.
That is all very well and good, and I am glad that the Government have thought in those terms. The substance of the four Amendments is simple. It is that we believe that, for example, an offence punishable with two years' imprisonment is a substantial one. We have seen examples recently of people—though not in this case the Government—lightheartedly attempting to put other people in gaol without adequate evidence. One fears that sometimes Executives have a desire to create criminal offences which would subsequently have the same effect as an individual court decision, only on rather more people, and which might put individuals in gaol for up to two years.
We all believe—whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) or my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—that these are penalties too great to be entrusted solely to the Executive. The sole point therefore of these Amendments is that very simple distinction, which would easily be acceptable to any person, irrespective of his views for or against Britain's entry of the Common Market. It has no relation to that, because the Schedule already limits the power of the Executive. Slightly narrowing that limitation would not prevent us from entering the Common Market. It would simply provide that, in relation to

any criminal offence, the penalties should be very limited if they are decided solely by the Executive and that only the Executive plus the House of Commons should decide upon them if they are wider than those limitations.

Mr. Powell: We are now starting to endeavour to discuss the contents of the Second Schedule in a period of just over three hours, minus any time which may be spent upon Divisions. It is additionally clear from the announcement which you have just made to the Committee, Mr. Brewis—that, in the discretion of the Chairman, a further Amendment has been selected as appropriate for discussion—that there is no possibility whatever of our accomplishing that task with any decency.
I should have thought that the events of recent days, if not weeks, would have made clear to my right hon. Friends, as I hope that they will make clear to any Administration, the unwisdom of any legislation—let alone major legislation, let alone legislation designed to alter the constitution of the country—reaching the Statute Book without the opportunity for the House of Commons to address itself to every provision in that legislation. We have lived through a fiasco, indeed a series of fiascoes, which arose from the provisions of a Part of an Act to which this House had never been permitted to direct its attention. I am not seeking to assign particular blame for that; I am simply drawing a conclusion which is equally mandatory upon both sides of the Committee.
Therefore, I cannot refrain from pointing out that this is a most important Schedule which we now approach. It contains vital safeguards which we shall not be able properly to consider, and it contains one of the few references, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), to the special relation of the constitutional changes in this Bill to a part of the United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland.
Without in any way trespassing upon your ruling or upon your patience, Mr. Brewis, with respect, it is right that that fact should be put on the record and that we should realise in advance all the difficulties into which we will run and of which there have been recent precedents, as a result of attempting to change


the law in fundamental respects without the House of Commons being able to consider what is being done.
I agree with the Amendments before us. I would prefer the wider form in which the absent Liberal Party put forward its proposals, but I would gladly assent to the more narrow and precise forms which stand in the name of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Incidentally, although we have not—no doubt for necessary and unavoidable reasons—had the advantage of the presence of the father and author of the Amendment under discussion to propose it to the Committee—that task was ably performed in his stead by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)—I hope that the Liberal Party, of all parties, will think it right to limit so far as possible the scope for subordinate legislation and in particular the penalties which can be imposed upon individual subjects in this country as a result of subordinate legislation, and that, too, subordinate legislation—this is perhaps a matter which we shall not have the opportunity to consider—which, as the Bill stands at the moment, will in many cases go through with the opportunity of only a negative Resolution.
It is entirely right that the limitations in the first paragraph of the Schedule should be further strengthened in one or other of the ways proposed. After all, in no other context would we give these powers to a Government in general terms to be exercised by subordinate legislation. No doubt one could find Acts of Parliament under which some important matters, perhaps going beyond these limitations in some cases, can be brought into effect by subordinate legislation. But they would be Acts for specific purposes, which had been debated in legislative form by this House. We have to remember that the powers of subordinate legislation which we are giving under Clause 2(2) are to be used for purposes that we cannot know. They are to be used simply to implement Community obligations at any time in future.
All the more jealously, therefore, ought we to limit what can be done by Statutory Instrument under Clause 2, under terms of reference which are so formless and vague; all the more jealously should we guard and enforce the requirement

that, where important burdens are to be placed upon the subject and new offences of a serious character created, that should be done by legislation, even though it is to be in fulfilment of a Community obligation.
The general attitude of the Executive in this matter, is that that does not matter. "Provided that something is a Community obligation", they say "what are we arguing about? What matter in what form it is actually implemented?'' That is not a point of view which I am sure commends itself to either side of the Committee. I would hope, therefore, that there would be general support for the proposal in these Amendments to limit the scope of the subordinate legislation designed to implement Community obligations.
However, there is a cruel irony which presents itself to our minds as we contemplate paragraph (1). The Schedule refers to Clause 2(2); and in it we set limits—I hope we shall set more narrow limits—to the power of Her Majesty's Government, of Ministers and Departments, to enact subordinate legislation. But I should be grateful to hear from the Minister whether any of these limitations will apply to the law which is to be made in this country under Clause 2(1).
The Minister thinks it right that subordinate legislation, made by the Executive in this country and placed before this House, should not impose or increase taxation. Can he say that taxation will not be imposed and increased directly without the House having any say in the matter? I do not believe he can, because that would be in conflict, amongst other things, with Clause 5. So we have the irony that while we are limiting what the Administration can do by instruments which would have to be presented to Parliament, and forbidding them to impose or increase taxation by such means, we are in the very same Bill allowing an authority outside this country unrestricted power to impose or increase taxation.
8.0 p.m.
We come to sub-paragraph (b). Are none of the self-enacting provisions of the Community likely to be retroactive? The Minister thinks it right, and I am sure the Committee thinks it right, that Statutory Instruments under Clause 2(2) should not be retroactive. Has there been


any understanding that Community law itself shall not be retroactive? We have been considering—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are considering one specific Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman must restrict his remarks to that Amendment.

Mr. Powell: I understood you to say, Mr. Brewis, that we were considering four Amendments together—Amendments Nos. 184, 410, 185 and 411.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman was applying his remarks to subparagraph (b) which is not related to any of these Amendments.

Mr. Powell: I hesitate to dispute that proposition in whole, though I do so, with great respect, in part. I was glancing at subparagraph (b) on my way from sub-paragraph (a), to which the first Amendment relates, to subparagraph (d) to which the other Amendments under discussion relate.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: They all relate to subparagraph (d) and are nothing to do with subparagraph (a).

Mr. Powell: In that case, I was nearer to the truth than I have supposed in my brief interchange with you, Mr. Brewis. I hasten on to sub-paragraph (d); and again I ask the Minister, since he believes that there should be these limitations upon offences created by Statutory Instruments which will be approved, or not disallowed, by the House, whether he is satisfied that no such offences and penalties will arise as a result of self-enacting Community legislation.
It would be an irony amounting to absurdity that we should here be debating what ought to be the limitations upon subordinate legislation under Clause 2(2), over which we have some control, while we are apparently content that what is done by an authority entirely external to this country and uncontrolled by this House shall be subject to no such limitation and to none of these restrictions. The Amendments, therefore, though they are limited in their scope, cast their own light as so many of the Amendments we have discussed have done, upon what is happening in this legislation and upon the enormity of it. Each successive Amendment or group of Amendments provides the Committee with an oppor-

tunity to mark its sense of the loss of control for the future which is being demanded of the House, loss of control over the laws by which the subject in this country will be governed. I hope that on this group of Amendments we shall at any rate go as far as we can, which is severely to limit the subordinate legislation which can be imposed under the umbrella of Community obligations, even by the Executive in this country, even when acting with the sanction of the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Foot: I will be extremely brief because we have a whole series of matters to deal with, which we are forced to discuss this evening. I certainly agree with every word that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said about the outrage that is being perpetrated on the Committee in having to deal with such important questions in such a short space of time, questions which could perfectly well require a full day's debate, because they go very far and affect issues which on previous occasions the House has insisted upon debating fully.
It is scandalous therefore that we should be debating the matter in these terms and with these kinds of restrictions. That has been further illustrated by the interventions of hon. Members who are being denied proper debate on the Clause which relates to Northern Ireland. I fully appreciate their feelings on the matter, and I hope they understand that it is no desire of ours that they should be deprived of the proper right to discuss the subject. However, we are bound to concentrate on sub-paragraph (d), although the Schedule deals with provisions on subordinate legislation.
We are bound to take into account the fact that the position about subordinate legislation is in a more serious state of impasse, or deadlock, or, more accurately, congestion, than the House has ever known in its history. I do not know whether the Committee fully appreciates the position, but during the past year or so, and particularly during recent months the accumulation of subordinate legislation has gone ahead far faster than we have ever known before. Many more Statutory Instruments subject to the negative Resolution procedure are failing to receive debate at a time when they should properly be debated. It is


only by arrangements between the two sides that debates on these negative Instruments are taken, when they cannot be effectively debated.
Moreover, the guillotine Motions which a majority of the House, including the Liberal Party, sought to impose on this and other Bills, have denied to the House continuously the possibility of a debate on Statutory Instruments. That is part of the reason for the congestion. What I am saying is strictly relevant to the Amendment, Mr. Brewis, because we are now surveying what will be the position of subordinate legislation under the Bill, when already the subordinate legislation that we have coming from other Bills cannot be dealt with. The subordinate legislation under the Bill relates to the critical question of whether people are sent to gaol or not. It is an important matter and I agree with what other hon. Members have said, that we would have expected the Government to be sensitive on these questions.
I hope the Government will accept the Amendments in the spirit in which they are proposed. The Government certainly cannot say that they create any difficulty for our entry into the Community. They cannot say there is no requirement to deal with the matter in the way proposed in the Amendments. It is solely the Government's decision that penalties of up to two years' imprisonment should be imposed for offences that are not yet described and that we do not yet know of. They could accept the Liberal Amendment. I hope we shall have the support of the Liberal Members in the Lobbies, even if we do not have their eloquence in the debate. It would be an extraordinary day in the history of the Liberal Party if, having put down such an Amendment to try to protect the liberty of individual citizens, Liberal Members did not turn up first to move their Amendment and secondly to vote for it. We shall have to see how they propose to comply with the traditions of the Liberal Party in this respect.
I hope the Government will give an immediate response to the proposals from both sides of the Committee by accepting the Amendments. We may then be able to move to the other extremely important aspects of the matter. Let no hon. Member imagine that we are deal-

ing with a small affair, because the way in which the House is to deal with subordinate legislation of our own is of paramount importance for the future of the House. Here we are making provision for a huge welter of fresh legislation to come upon us when we cannot even deal with the legislation we already have. I hope the Government will realise that we are making a serious demand, and that it is a serious step to push through the House with such speed new penalties for offences which we do not know and which have not even been defined. If the Government responded to our appeal we should be able to examine the other extremely important matters that fall to be debated on the Schedule.

Sir D. Renton: Anyone who objects as strongly as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to the provisions of Clause 2 should welcome with open arms paragraph 1 of the Schedule. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) so accurately said, the Government have taken power in the Schedule to limit their own power to create offences. However, we are entitled to ask, especially in relation to the two Liberal Amendments, the drafting of which I agree is rather strange, where the power to create new offences in the circumstances envisaged arises at all.
We should ask ourselves that partly because of the query raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who said in effect that subordinate legislation cannot—he may have meant "should not"—be used for creating new criminal offences. In fact, it frequently has been done under express powers granted by Statute. What has been objected to so often is the use of the "grandchildren" for the purpose, in other words, the sub ordinate legislation itself giving power to someone else to create new offences. That matter has come before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has frowned upon it, and the practice has been abandoned. Therefore, there is power under our present long-standing practice to make new criminal offences by subordinate legislation.
8.15 p.m.
I must confess that when I was trying to understand the Amendments, and where the Government obtained the


power to make new criminal offences at all, I had to look back to Clause 2. We must rely on the provisions of Clause 2(4), the words of which are very wide. It says:
The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above includes, subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament…
Generally, when we are giving power to create new offences, we do it by creating an express power to do it. Here we have not done it in that way; we have done it by much wider words. In my opinion—I do not hold myself out as being the only person with a sound opinion on these occasions—although we have not done it in the usual way we have done it by choosing such wide words as are referred to in Clause 2(4). So much for the generalities of the matter with which the Amendment deals.
I come to the two specific Labour Amendments dealing with maximum penalties. Maximum penalties are designed for the worst examples that can be imagined of the offences to which they relate. It is fairly rare for the courts to impose the maximum penalty for any offence laid down by Parliament. It is the exception rather than the rule. Our system of criminal justice gives discretion to the court to fix the penalty within the maximum so that it fits not only the offence but the offender. It is important for us to remember that system of ours. It means that those who offend against what the Community is trying to achieve will be dealt with by our courts in accordance with our own system. They will be dealt with for offences against Orders in Council and other subordinate legislation referred to as regulations. That is nothing new. It gives the lie to those outside the House who have said—it has not been said here tonight, because no one would have the temerity to say it as it is not true—that if we join the European Community our system of criminal justice will not be applied and a continental system will be. As regards offences created by this subordinate legislation, that would not be true.
It is generally difficult to decide what the maximum penalty should be for any offence. It is a matter of judgment as to what the worst examples of a particular type of offence might be. It is not mere guesswork but a judgment formed

on past experience of comparable offences and their penalties, a judgment which must also be formed with a knowledge of the type of mischief which the penalty is designed to prevent. Bearing that in mind, and that the offences with which this legislation will be concerned are mainly trading offences, I suggest that £400 on summary conviction is much nearer the mark, much more realistic than the £50 that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is asking the Committee to approve. The figure of £50 was for many years the upper limit of jurisdiction in the magistrates' courts but over the last 30 years many trading offences have had a maximum penalty far exceeding £50 and sometimes as much as £5,000. There are numerous examples of trading offences of that kind with the maximum penalties adjusted accordingly to them.
I believe, therefore, that £400 on summary conviction is about right. For these reasons, I would not consider that the limitation of the powers contained in Schedule 2—the limitation on the Government's power to create new offences—would be improved by acceptance of the Amendments.

Mr. Waddington: I tried to intervene when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was speaking. I know that he would not wish to mislead the Committee, but in fairness to the Liberal Party it should be put on record that there are two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). No other Liberal Member is supporting those Amendments and it is perhaps fair for us to recognise that the hon. and learned Member has not always agreed with the other Liberal Members during the progress of the Bill.
I agree very much with much of what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about the maximum permissible penalties laid down in Schedule 2. A few moments ago I glanced through Archbold's "Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice", and in particular at the schedule towards the back of that volume in which is set out virtually all the offences known to English law and the maximum penalties which can be inflicted in the case of each of those offences. Some hon. Members may be


surprised to hear that very few offences known to our law are punishable with a maximum penalty of less than two years' imprisonment. The vast majority of offences known to English law are punishable by life imprisonment or 10 or seven years' imprisonment, and only a handful of offences are punishable with a maximum of only two years.
The main point, however, is that made by my right hon. and learned Friend when he pointed out that the bulk of the offences we are concerned with when we consider Schedule 2 are trading offences and that one has to compare this type of offence with, for instance, offences such as those created under the Trade Descriptions Act. It would be ridiculous to deal with offences under that Act with a maximum penalty of £50, which is the maximum financial penalty suggested in Amendment No. 411.
When I first looked at this part of Schedule 2 I said to myself that it seemed to be going a little too far to set in motion a procedure whereby there might be created dozens of new criminal offences punishable by as much as two years' imprisonment, but I can only repeat that one has to cater for the worst type of the offence in question and that, when one looks at the penalties which can be inflicted on persons guilty of criminal offences in this country, one finds that the vast majority of offences are punishable in the worst cases with very much more than two years imprisonment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. You gave a ruling at the beginning of the debate on these Amendments which affected hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland. You said that it would not be possible for them to deal with a matter which very much concerned them. Could I draw your attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a promise to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that on Schedule 2 we would be allowed to discuss this very important point. I refer you to HANSARD of 14th June, in column 1588, in which a specific promise was given to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that on Schedule 2 we would be entitled to discuss this matter.
I should like you to consider this matter and see whether you cannot in some way permit hon. Members from Northern Ireland to discuss this matter. After all, we are dealing with an Amendment to Schedule 2 and surely in some way we should be able to discuss a matter which is of such concern to us.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must know that th Amendment in question—No. 444—has not been selected, but there is no reason why it should not be discussed on the Question, "That the Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill". The operation of a guillotine is not within my responsibility.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Brewis. Is it not the case that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is in order in raising the point he has made but that he should know, as Ministers know, that when they make a promise such as that it is a dishonest promise because they know that they cannot decide what the Chair will or will not allow? Of course we know that the Government make promises in the knowledge that they can and will and do break them. Therefore, it is up to the hon. Gentleman to raise with the Government the fact that they have deliberately broken their promise and knew when they made it that they had no intention of keeping it.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. Perhaps I misheard what you said. It would surely be in order for hon. Members to raise these matters in the debate on the Schedule as a whole. Unfortunately, of course, it may be that we shall have very little time for that debate. We had originally hoped that there would be some time for it, and one of the matters which would arise on it would be the Northern Ireland question. Unfortunately, it appears that it will be very difficult indeed to get an adequate debate unless we can all co-operate in trying to ensure that we do get some time for it. Certainly we on this side of the Committee think that it would be a great outrage, particularly in view of the promise given to hon. Members opposite, if they were denied the right to raise this matter. It is an extremely


important matter, as the Government themselves know.
There is a very simple way in which the Government could carry out their pledge if they wanted to. They could agree to a Report stage for the Bill. The Report stage is in our procedure so that the Government can carry out their promises. If the Government wish to prove themselves honourable in discharging their obligations to those to whom they gave their pledge, they have a simple way of doing it. I submit that it is perfectly possible for these matters to be debated on the Schedule as a whole, but that if we are denied the right to have that debate it is possible for the Government to ensure that we have time to debate them by allowing a Report stage. A Report stage is a familiar opportunity to put such matters to the Government when a Bill is going through the House.

The Temporary Chairman: Questions about the Report stage are not for me to decide, but, of course, it would appear that the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would be in order in the debate on the Schedule as a whole. Perhaps we shall get to that debate rather quicker if hon. Members do not raise lengthy points of order.

Mr. Michael Havers: May I deal briefly with this subparagraph, which is confined entirely to penalties? I will consider the Amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and read the subsection as he would have it amended. It would read:
to create any new criminal offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine of more than £400 (if not calculated on a daily basis) or with a fine of more than £5 a day.
That means that no question of imprisonment would follow and it would mean that this paragraph would be entirely emasculated and pointless. If we then look at Amendments 410 and 411 it would read:
to create any new criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for more than three months or punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for more than three months or with a fine of more than £50…
and so on. That does not seem to make sense anyway.
If left like that does it mean that the first lot of three months can be tried on

indictment because that would seem pointless? What it really means is that it is only three months, whether on indictment or on summary trial. The penalty of £50 is now the maximum fine for a speeding offence and, I think, half the maximum fine for careless driving. When we look at this, we have to keep these suggested penalties in perspectve and these two Amendments make a nonsense of the whole paragraph.

[SIR ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I want to endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) has said. I am afraid that the arguments addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) were completely wrong, as were those of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). They both arose out of a complete misapprehension of every single word they were saying. The situation is plain beyond peradventure. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who is not here tonight—he must have appreciated what the Amendment would do—would produce exactly the reverse effect. He sought to reduce from two years to three months the term of imprisonment and this arises out of a misapprenhension.
In a criminal trial there are two methods of trial. One is trial on summary jurisdiction and the other is on indictment. With summary trials it has been provided that there will be three months or a fine of £400—incidentally a very moderate fine nowadays for any commercial offence and it is likely that commercial offences would be the subject of this subparagraph. If there is indictment the minimum amount of imprisonment which may be awarded is seldom, if ever, less than two years. In my experience, two years is about the minimum. That does not mean that any sentence of imprisonment will be provided, it may well be a fine.
Therefore, the provisions contained here are simple and minimal. They are not at all excessive. The Amendment although not out of order, was completely pointless and it was far from a liberal


Amendment, it was grossly illiberal because by removing what he sought to remove the hon. and learned Member would give the Government the power to impose any sentence, however great, on indictment. I merely wish to underline what was said far more briefly and with consummate accuracy by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I add to it only so that the public will recognise what the Liberal Amendment would do which is to increase the powers of the Government and not to decrease them by giving this large, punitive power on indictment.
The Amendments tabled by the Opposititon are derisory and of no point at all. The fines would be like those imposed for running up a number of parking offences. It is for these reasons that it is wrong of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to suggest that this is a matter which needed to be debated at any length. I go so far as to say that had the matter been explained by the Government in two minutes at the beginning of the debate, as no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend would have done, we would not have needed to waste time on the debate at all, for all that my hon. and learned Friend and I have had to do is to put the record straight.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is not here perhaps I should refer briefly to the Amendment in his name. My understanding of the position is as it has been explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). I do not think that this is an official Liberal Amendment. I think the Liberal Party as a whole has dissociated itself from the Amendment. As has been properly pointed out, the effect of the Liberal Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 would be precisely the opposite of what the hon. and learned Member intends.
What has to be borne in mind is that the provisions of paragraph 1(l)(d) do not positively deal with the imposition of penalties or the power to impose penalties. That is done negatively. It imposes fetters on the wide power contained in Clause 2(2).
By taking out any reference to a limitation on penalties of imprisonment, either under proceedings on indictment or proceedings taken summarily, these Amendments would impose no limit on the power to make a Regulation under Clause 2(2) without any limit on the penalty of imprisonment which could be imposed. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery intended no such result.
The two Amendments in the name of the official Opposition are properly focused in the sense that they seek to narrow further the restrictions which the legislation is imposing on the exercise of a power under Clause 2(2). The Government have all along recognised that the wide powers contained in Clause 2(2) have to be restricted. The whole effect of Schedule 2 paragraph 1(d), is to impose restrictions on the power to create offences which impose penalties.
The only question is to what extent that power should be cut down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members would seek to have that power cut down still further. I am bound to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) and other hon. Members have correctly stated the position. The maximum penalty referred to either by way of monetary penalty or imprisonment is entirely in accordance with current practice. Regarding the imposition of penalties, as has already been pointed out by a number of hon. and learned Members, it is quite usual in this sphere.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968. In Section 18 of that Act, the penalties which may be imposed are precisely the same as those which may be imposed in the Schedule, except that they are less in the sense that there is no reference to imprisonment on summary proceedings. On summary conviction there is provision for a fine not exceeding £400 and on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Mr. English: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I shall finish this point and then readily give way. I shall not take up too much time on this matter.
These penalties are typical of the kind of penalties which are imposed by Statute in the sphere with which we are concerned in the exercise of powers contained in Clause 2(2).
A much closer analogy will be found in the provisions of Section 7 of the Mineral Workings (Offshore) Installations Act, 1971. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out, there are many examples of Parliament delegating responsibility and power to create offences by regulation and to impose penalties. The provisions of Section 7 of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act, 1971, operate in that direction. Subsection 2(a) of that Section makes the following provision:
may provide for the creation of offences and for their punishment on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment".
It continues in the following subsection to deal with the maximum penalties which can be imposed in the exercise of that delegated power. It says:
The punishment for an offence created by regulations under this Act shall be—

(a) on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £400,
(b) on conviction on indictment imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years…".
It is a question of judgment what the upper limit should be. The provisions in the Schedule are inline with numerous examples of similar exercises of powers.

Similar problems arise under other legislation.

We are dealing with the maximum penalty which can be imposed in the exercise of that regulation-making power. It does not follow that every regulation or instrument made under Clause 2(2) would in practice have a maximum of two years' imprisonment on indictment or a fine of £400 or three months' imprisonment on summary conviction. That is the upper limit beyond which the regulation or instrument could not go. But whatever penalty was imposed or applied in the regulation or instrument under the exercise of these powers, it is always a matter for the court to decide what penalty should in any particular circumstances be imposed.

This is not one of the major issues in our discussions on the Bill. I submit that the maximum levels that have been struck here are right. They introduce the necessary flexibility for the proper exercise of the regulation-making power which has to consider not only the bad offence, but the second offence. Second offences also have to be taken into account. Therefore, there must be some flexibility and latitude. I submit that the levels that have been struck here are right, and I invite the Committee to accept them.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 274.

Division No. 231.]
AYES
[8.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow Sp'burn)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Allen, Scholefield
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Doig, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Driberg, Tom


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunn, James A.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dunnett, Jack


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Edelman, Maurice


Biffen, John
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Fred


Body, Richard
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ewing, Henry


Booth, Albert
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Faulds, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt. Kn. Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Foley, Maurice


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Foot, Michael




Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Gilbert, Dr. John
McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Golding, John
McGuire, Michael
Roderick, CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Roper, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McMaster, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maginnis, John E.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hardy, Peter
Marsden, F.
Sillars, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Silverman, Julius


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marten, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mayhew, Christopher
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Horam, John
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moate, Roger
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molyneaux, James
Taverne, Dick


Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Moyle, Roland
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tomney, Frank


John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oram, Bert
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orbach, Maurice
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kaufman, Gerald
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wallace, George


Kelley, Richard
Padley, Walter
Watkins, David


Kerr, Russell
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Weitzman, David


Kilfedder, James
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Kinnock, Neil
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lambie, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lamborn, Harry
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Latham, Arthur
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Leonard, Dick
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prescott, John



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)



Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Carlisle, Mark


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boscawen, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Astor, John
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cary, Sir Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bray, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Balniel, Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Churchill, W. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Cockeram, Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Cooke, Robert


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Coombs, Derek







Cordle, John
Iremonger, T.L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P. 
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Redmond, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knox, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lambton, Lord
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Sharples, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simeons, Charles


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Foster, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Fry, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardner, Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)



Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Steel, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stokes, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Money, Ernle
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trew, Peter


Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighlay)
Montgomery, Fergus
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Waddington, David


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Walters, Dennis


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey
Warren, Kenneth


Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wilkinson, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Holland, Philip 
Pardoe, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Holt, Miss Mary 
Parkinson, Cecil
Worsley, Marcus


Hordern, Peter
Peel, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Younger, Hn. George


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Mr Hugh Rossi.


Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 20, line 32, at end insert:
'or
(e) to make any provision for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom, or enabling any such obligation to be implemented under section 2(2)(a) of this Act unless before such obligation arose any proposal by virtue of which such obligation arises has been laid before Parliament and a Committee of each House of Parliament has reported thereto upon such proposal'.
May I, through you, Sir Alfred, begin by thanking the Chairman of Ways and Means for responding to the request made to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) to select this Amendment. I appreciate that it will absorb time which would have been allotted to later Amendments and I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members concerned with them. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I who put down the Amendment on the day the Bill received its Second Reading are convinced that it raises an issue of fundamental importance. It is concerned not only with parliamentary control over the Executive but with the reality of parliamentary participation in the decision-making processes in Brussels. Because it is concerned with that participation, it is inevitably concerned also with our relations with our future partners in the Communities.
There are those who take the view that the best form of participation will be in the European Parliament. I respect that view, but as one who had close experience over several years of European parliamentary assemblies I cannot disguise from myself that for many years to come the real participation and the real control must be here at Westminster.
Right hon. and hon. Members in the Committee may differ sincerely on whether we should enter and on the terms of entry, but we must surely all accept that if we are to become partners in the Communities it is essential that our relations with our partners should be as smooth as possible. We must surely agree that if hon. Members do not feel themselves to be in the fullest sense participants in the decisions taken in Brussels, decisions which will create new obligations on our fellow citizens, the likelihood of a smooth relationship will be frustrated.
Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, whether they are in favour of

entry or against it, must appreciate that if obligations which are entered into on our behalf, and which we here representing our constituents have had and will have no genuine opportunity to consider or to debate, are given the force of law by procedures which fail to provide us with any practical way of suggesting the method which is most advantageous or least harmful to our constituents, that will be the surest way of creating dissatisfaction, frustration and ultimately unwillingness to co-operate.
It is because the Amendment seeks to create better opportunities of parliamentary particpiation in the decision-making process that we regard it as of fundamental importance. It is concerned with the method by which we shall give effect to the obligations which are created by or arise under the treaties and which are of such character that the treaties leave to the discretion of Parliaments the methods of giving effect to them.
If we examine paragraph 1 of the Schedule, we see that it is evident that the Government have accepted the principle that obligations of this character need not all be dealt with by a single procedure. Still less need they all be dealt with by the "accept or reject" process which is familiar to us in subordinate legislation. The Government have decided to exempt four categories of enactments from this "accept or reject" process. We applaud that decision. We believe it is right that the ordinary process of legislation should be invoked, with all the powers of debate and amendment available to hon. Members, where the intention is to give effect to obligations which, in the words of paragraph 1 of the Schedule, involve taxation, retrospection, delegation or serious offences.
It is right that Parliament, while not seeking to depart from our obligations, should be able to alter the proposed tax system, challenge the retrospection, reconsider the procedures of delegation and scrutinise the offences and the penalties. But we do not believe this goes far enough. As the Bill stands, in no other case will Parliament have this power. Obligations affecting our regional policies, agricultural polices and the whole process of harmonisation which will ensue after membership may fall quite outside the four exempted categories. In all those cases, if they do not fall within the


exempted categories, Parliament s power of control—not of the obligation alone but also of the method of giving effect to it—will be no more than the theoretical power to accept or reject. I say "theoretical" because the power will be exercisable in circumstances in which rejection will be a breach of our obligations already entered into.
Thus, in practice Parliament will be able to reject for one purpose and for one purpose only, that of hoping to persuade the Government to come forward with a fresh order or regulation using a different form or method. Surely no one will dispute that that is neither an effective nor an economical use of parliamentary time, assuming that the time will be available at all, when matters of great importance require decision. Certainly it cannot be even suggested that the four exempted categories together embrace all the matters of importance which may arise out of the obligations which we shall be called upon to perform. We know, however, from long experience how frustrating it is to those who are not Ministers of the Crown to seek to debate, discuss and effect changes under the subordinate legislation procedure.
In matters of great importance, it is only reluctantly and as a temporary expedient that we accept this procedure, as we did recently in the crisis situation in Northern Ireland, for a limited period only. In this Bill, however, we are creating what is intended to be the future framework of a new system of parliamentary control over our future new relationship with the Communities. For this we surely need something better than that which may be appropriate as a temporary expedient.
That was why we put down this Amendment at the outset of discussion on the Bill. Its effect would be that Committees of this and the other House would have the duty to examine proposals and to report on them to Parliament before our Ministers accepted obligations based upon them in Brussels. Some may think that this is a very modest proposal. In this respect, we do no more than adapt to our own procedure a system which, as I understand it, operates successfully in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the Netherlands. Those countries recognise the need to bring

Parliament into the decision-making process before and not after their obligations are entered into. Their Parliaments act in the closest contact with their Ministers, both before and after the decisions are made.
Our Amendment is a very moderate one. It does not even compel the Government in all cases to consult the Committees which would be set up or Parliament to which they would report. We recognise that this might not always be possible. But where it is not possible or is not done, surely it is in just those cases that parliamentary control is most required of the method of giving effect to the obligations entered into without that procedure having been gone through beforehand. That is why our Amendment would require that if Parliament had been unable to consider proposals for an obligation before it was entered into, the ordinary parliamentary process of legislation would be required to give effect to the obligation.
Thus the basic principle of the Amendment is that Parliament should be able to scrutinise and control our obligations, either before they are entered into at the proposal stage or afterwards at the stage of giving effect to them. By accepting the categories which I have described and which are comprised in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule, the Government have accepted the principle of this scrutiny and control. But they have created an artificial limitation to the cases in which they should be exercised. This Amendment pursues the Government's principle to its logical conclusion. It removes the artificial boundaries. It asserts the right of Parliament properly to supervise Ministers who intend to accept obligations on our behalf.
It is an Amendment which should be acceptable to all right hon. and hon. Members, whether they call themselves pro-Marketeers or anti-Marketeers or neither. It is about Parliament first and Europe second. It deserves Parliament's support.

Sir T. Beamish: I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). On thinking back over what he said, and on thinking back over our debates, I cannot help feeling that there has been a failure on the part of the Committee to concentrate properly on the whole question of


subordinate legislation and the power to make regulations exercisable by Statutory Instrument, as modified by Schedule 2.
Until now the Opposition have been opposed in principle to discussing exactly how Parliament should scrutinise Community legislation—[Interruption.] That is true, and I shall explain why. I am not pulling this out of the air. I believe it is true that the Opposition have refused in principle to discuss with the majority of the Committee who are in favour of our joining the Community the best way in which both Houses should scrutinise Community legislation, and I warmly welcome the fact that we now have an Amendment, put down at the last minute, and surprisingly called, which makes one suggestion about how we should do this.
I think it was inevitable that up to this stage there should be a lack of co-operation between those against our joining and those in favour, simply because the Front Bench spokesmen for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have both been opposed from the outset to our joining the Community.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) would not wish to misrepresent the situation. We have had a whole series of debates on matters on which we have voted and on which we made proposals for controlling Statutory Instruments and the way in which the House of Commons should deal with these matters. We had one Amendment which dealt with the proposal for an ad hoc committee, and we voted on that. It dealt with much the same thing dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in the Amendment which he has just moved. It is not the case that we have not put forward proposals which could have dealt with this problem. The Government could have responded to them instead of refusing every Amendment. The majority of our Amendments could have been accepted even by those who wish to secure entry to the Common Market.

Sir T. Beamish: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because

it gives me the opportunity to say that the reason why I have been against all these different suggestions is that they would all have had the effect of tying the hands of the House in this legislation.
What I have wanted all along, and what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have wanted, is discussions between those who favour going in and those who are against entry, between the Government and the Opposition, about the best way in which we should handle these matters. To try to write every syllable and comma into the Bill seems to be a great mistake, and that is why I feel sure the Committee will reject the Amendment.
But there have been ample opportunities ever since last October when the House voted by a majority of 112 in favour of joining, at a time when the terms were known in almost every detail, apart from the inshore fishing regulations, for both sides to get together and discuss these matters.

Mr. Michael Foot: The principle upon which we have insisted, and upon which we still insist, is that if provision is to be made for parliamentary scrutiny of Instruments of any form that should be incorporated into the Bill and approved by Parliament. That is the principle on which we insist, and we believe that it is a good one.

Sir T. Beamish: That is precisely the principle with which I do not agree, because there are many different ways in which this delegated legislation can be handled. For instance, these matters could be discussed by the ad hoc committee which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy suggested many months ago but which opponents of the Bill refused to countenance. They could be discussed in the Brooke Committee, which is considering the whole question of delegated legislation and Statutory Instruments. This would be a perfect opportunity of haying the whole matter considered without the necessity of altering the Bill. There was an opportunity for this matter to be discussed in the Select Committee on Procedure of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), the Father of the House, is Chairman.
What does Germany do about Community legislation which must be incorporated into German domestic law? It so happens that I know the answer to that fairly well, but the Committee should be told. What do Italy, Belgium and Holland do? We should have all this information. The Select Committee on Procedure should have collected it by now. I deplore the fact that it has not done so. We have, quite unnecessarily, kept ourselves in the dark.
I was very pleased that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy suggested last week that a Select Committee should be set up to consider this matter and the kindred matter as to how we should select Members for the European Parliament—that is a very important matter, because they will be able to act as a link between the institutions of the Community and this Parliament—it was not rejected out of hand as his proposal that a ad hoc committee should be set up was rejected out of hand.
I do not think that this is a good Amendment. It would have the effect of tying the hands of both Houses of Parliament unnecessarily. These matters should be discussed through the usual channels. I hope that the proposal to set up a Select Committee to consider the whole question of delegated legislation and the selection of Members for the European Parliament will be followed up by every hon. Member who wants to make a success of Britain's joining the Community, whether he is opposed to our entry in principle or whether he is in favour of it.

Mr. William Molloy: The submissions made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) were most astounding, because he has spent a great deal of time in the Committee and he must have known of the endeavours of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed of many of his own hon. Friends, to probe and to try to illustrate how important are the quintessentials of the Amendments which have arisen time and time again in previous debates.
Whether we are in favour of the Measure or whether we are against it, we are united in acknowledging that this is one of the most important Measures ever dis-

cussed on the Floor of the House of Commons. The last thing we want to be doing with such an important Measure is considering any aspect of it in any little hole or corner of the Palace of Westminster. The whole matter should be ruthlessly and scrupulously examined on the Floor of the House so that the nation can know what is going on. These matters should not be conducted for the convenience of any group of Members.
The hon. and gallant Member said that we have had opportunities to raise these issues. From listening to the debate, no innocent person would dream that we are debating this Measure under the threat of a guillotine. No innocent person would think that we must finish by 11 o'clock tonight and that we must adopt a system of priorities in deciding what we will say.
The Amendment goes to the heart of one of the grave apprehensions of many of us about the whole issue of Britain joining the Community. I am sure that hon. Members on the Government side listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said. There are those who sincerely wish to enter the EEC. The proof of their sincerity is that henceforth they cannot go along with the Government unless this Amendment is acceptable to them.
We have come this evening to one of the most vital issues we have discussed. Those hon. Members who may be passionately in favour of entering the EEC will be unable to continue their support. Much of their apprehension was voiced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich. That applies to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We are now about to witness one of the most crucial matters in these debates, as to whether the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. If they do not, everyone, whether pro-Market or anti-Market, must join together and save not only the House of Commons but the nation's entire future.

9.15 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I rise to intervene for only a few moments. I hasten to assure the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that there is no danger of the guillotine falling upon my speech.
This is an interesting and important Amendment because it is concerned with one aspect of what is, perhaps, the greatest and certainly one of the most intractable problems which faces the EEC, whether or not Britain enters. In any event, there is a great problem before the Community, of which it is very conscious, of seeking to improve the democratic elements of decision-making within the Community. If Britain enters the Community—we have to make that assumption in our discussion of the Bill—we have a special interest in seeing that the task of democratising the decision-making within the Community is successfully pursued.
The Amendment deals with part of this problem because in essence there are two problems, one of which lies outside the ambit of the Amendment. The first part of the problem is to try to see that more of the edicts of the Community are made by way of directive than by way of self-enacting regulation, because if they are made by self-enacting regulation none of these procedures can apply. The only way in which the self-enacting regulations can be made more democratic in the decision-making is by processes within the Community The second part of the problem, however, is to try to get, with the larger number of directives—if one successfully pursued the first part of the problem—a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny and thereby of democratic control.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) proposes a method in the Amendment, which I do not find unattractive. But this is a task which is taking place all over Europe, with varying degrees of success. The hon. and learned Gentleman cited Germany and the Netherlands, which have probably the best system going as yet, but there is a variety of committee patterns in the countries of the Community striving to do this.
I do not quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) that we are altogether in the dark on this matter, because, although it has not been done by the Select Committee on Procedure, Mr. Michael Niblock's Chatham House study gives a clear account of the various ways in which the countries of the Community are trying

to deal with this problem. The solution proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman comes close to the German and the Dutch method of dealing with it.
The Committee has to ask itself whether there is anything in the Amendment inimical either to proper executive processes or to the workings of Parliament. On the face of it, it is clear that the Amendment is designed to improve our parliamentary control of directives in regard to which we have a control only as to the form and not as to the substance. Nevertheless, it is important

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely one also has to ask whether such pattern of consultation as may be evolved, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, is evolving in the Netherlands and Germany, need necessarily be written specifically into the Bill.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If one could be sure that it would be done without it, I agree that there would be no necessity to write it into the Statute. But the ordinary way in this country of providing for a machinery is to legislate it in an Act of Parliament. I throw back the question of whether there is any harm in putting on to the Statute Book such a provision as this. The only possible harm that I can see is that there is no definition here of a Committee of each House of Parliament. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich discussed the form of Committee he had in mind.
One of the difficulties which has been found in the countries of the Six is the setting-up of committees for these purposes in that the directives necessarily cover such a very wide range of subject matter. Therefore, their subject matter falls not within the compass of what would in the ordinary way be a single functional Committee of the House of Commons; it falls into a series of Committees. I do not know precisely what the hon. and learned Member has in mind as to the Committee which he envisages reporting upon the proposal before there is discussion in the House.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. All that the Amendment requires is that a relevant proposal


should be laid before Parliament and that a Committee of each House should report to Parliament. That embraces or could embrace a number of different Committees dealing with different points, but any specific proposal must have been considered by a Committee.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He makes it clear that he intends a flexible statutory provision, so that the best way of dealing with it could be evolved in practice, which to some extent meets the point of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes.
As I said in a debate last week, these are aspects of the matter which in the conduct of the Bill we ought to be considering and which we perhaps get rather fewer chances to consider than we would wish. I like the tone of the Amendment and certainly the thought and the spirit behind it, which I understand is to improve the democratic element in the decision-making machinery and give greater scope for parliamentary action.

Mr. Edmund Dell: The Chairman's decision to include this Amendment for discussion deprives other hon. Members of opportunities to speak to their Amendments, but I should like to make a few brief points, particularly in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish). The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East said that the Amendment dealt with only part of the problem, and I entirely accept that. It is just another example of the way in which the Bill should be improved as a basis for entry into the Common Market. The right hon. and learned Gentleman described it as an intractable problem, and it is an intractable problem of the Community. I say that as one who has for long believed that this country should join the Common Market. The democratisation of European institutions is a very difficult problem, given the constitutional character of the Community.
In practice, I see the only realistic form of democratic control which can be developed in the foreseeable future as a realistic control by national Parliaments over their Government. I do not see an attempt to develop realistic control

through a European Parliament as providing a practical potentiality for control of the European institutions. Maybe far in the future that will be possible, but it could work the other way if one were not careful because if, under cover of marginal increases in the power of the European Parliament, there were very real additional concentrations of power at the centre, one would achieve not democratisation but anti-democratisation.
Therefore, to me it is of vital importance that we should have a suitable method by which the House will control the British Government in the negotiations in Brussels. I hope that the other national Parliaments within the EEC will develop, as the Germans and the Dutch have done, their own effective means for democratic control of their own Governments. When the negotiations have taken place and when the agreement is made, then too we will want to interview the Minister, as they do in the German Bundestag, to see why it was necessary to arrive at this specific agreement. This seems to me to be the only realistic hope.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes asked why should we tie the hands of the House in this way and why is it necessary to write this proposal into the legislation. I do not see how the Amendment ties the hands of the House. It says only that obligations shall be looked at by Committees of both Houses before they are entered into. How does this tie the hands of the House? Is it not necessary that the House should know what agreements are likely to be entered into on this country's behalf through the European institutions? Is there any form of such agreement about which the House would wish to be ignorant? All we are saying is that there should be a Committee and that the Committee should report to the House—nothing more. It is the most flexible instrument conceivable. There are other Amendments on the Order Paper which might be said to tie the hands of the House if they were adopted. We could not have a more flexible method of control, or one which was more directly related to the essential point, than that proposed in the Amendment. The essential point is that we require to have the opportunity of discussing in advance what the Government will enter into on our behalf.

Mr. Russell Johnson: I very much sympathise with what the Amendment is seeking to achieve but would the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) agree, if he thinks that an essential feature of democratisation within the Community lies in controlling national Governments by national Parliaments, that this is something which could be done at any time, and perhaps after broader and more thorough consideration has been given to the proposal than might be possible within the confines of this Bill?

Mr. Dell: I noted the hon. Member's intervention during the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East when he asked whether such a provision should be written into the legislation. I will answer that question in this way. It is certainly true that the House subsequent to this legislation could decide upon a mechanism such as this. Indeed, I hope that, if this legislation is passed and we enter the Community, such a system will be set up. But it is impossible to argue, and I as a pro-Marketeer would not argue, that the country is overwhelmingly in favour of this exercise. Therefore, it is desirable, for reasons of public confidence, if for no others, to write into the Bill a guarantee for this Parliament's control over the British Government in their European negotiations. It is wrong that we should pass the Bill without having the least idea what the Government have in mind in that respect.
9.30 p.m.
It has been useful to have this debate, if for no other reason than that we may receive from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster something more than a repetition of his offer of an ad hoc committee. What have the Government in mind? Let him tell us that at any rate. They must know what system of control they intend to propose to Parliament.
That apart, I return to my main point to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. The Amendment ties the hands of the House in no way. It provides a flexible means of control. It is a guarantee of the availability of a system of control. I cannot see the least reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment, or at any rate suggest an Amendment which will provide the

same effect but, if they wish it, in a different way, which we can then discuss.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), I am surprised at the Opposition's hostility to the Schedule. After all, its whole purpose is to attempt to retain some part of the sovereignty by which they set such store.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who moved the Amendment, called it moderate but it seems to involve an enormous widening of the Schedule. It seems to me to exempt practically everything from Clause 2(2) and to be an infringement of the treaties we have signed. But I wholly agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that we want to find a method whereby the House of Commons can control our Ministers. The countries of the Six have done so, and our Parliament also can act in close touch with our Ministers.
The truth is that when we enter the European Economic Community we shall cede some sovereignty over our own affairs. Our task must be to see how Parliament can maintain as much control as possible over that. We still have to devise methods of sending Members of the House of Commons to the European Parliament. I have long held that it will be impossible for a Member here also to be a member of the European Parliament. It will be out of the question for any Member to spend one-third of the year in Brussels, Luxembourg or wherever that Parliament may be. He cannot do his duty here by his constituents if he also has to do that. All these things must be discovered.
Meanwhile, we must accept that joining the Community means a yielding up of sovereignty. I commend to the Committee the words the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) recently wrote:
If Britain cuts herself off from the possibilities of growth inherent in a united Europe, she restricts that freedom of action and choice which is the real substance of sovereignty.
He also said:
Westminster cannot, by a mere exercise of sovereign power, guarantee to Britain a healthy balance of payments or the certainty of economic growth. It can approve policies which will help these aims; but their realisation depends


on what is happening overseas, and especially in Western Europe.
That is the message which I consider that the Committee should send out to the country, at the same time devising means whereby we can maintain control over our Ministers, who after all will have a powerful voice in the Council of Ministers—as powerful as if not more powerful than any other. That is what I wish to achieve. As the right hon. Member for Fulham also said, this whole business combines
that regard for present reality with an open door to the future which is the recipe for success in the art of politics.
I believe that the Amendment is far too wide of the mark and therefore I shall certainly not vote for it.

Mr. Rippon: The Amendment seeks to enshrine in the Bill a procedure whereby Parliament should examine certain Community proposals before they are accepted and become binding upon the United Kingdom. I think that the difference between us is about what is appropriate to put in the legislation. It is right that we should be very much concerned with the very serious issues raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) has said, these are matters which must concern Parliament. Indeed, we have had several debates in Committee on this issue.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) says that the procedure should be in the Bill. I have consistently taken a different view, as has the Committee. On 14th March, I said:
It is important that there should be a distinction between what goes into legislation and what is for procedural arrangements—a distinction between what is in the Bill and what is for"—
in that case—
the ad hoc committee. This distinction goes to the root of the Government's objections to this Amendment because it proposes to embody in legislation what is not suitable for legislation. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is so. It would not be in the interests of Parliament itself to depart from accepted arrangements by determining parliamentary procedure and to make such procedural provisions in statutes which themselves could be amended by a Bill. I should have thought that many hon. Members on

either side of the Committee would accept that parliamentary procedures need to be much more flexible, especially in the developing situation after we have become members of the Community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 483.]
I think this point, which was taken also by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) is valid. We can deal with these things in any way we like. We do not have, and we should not try, to write a provision of this kind into the Bill.
We have discussed frequently the importance of Parliament having the opportunity to express a view while a matter is still going through the Commission or the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament and before a regulation or directive which may be binding on us has been made. That aspect I set out on 25th April, and it is in column 1345 of HANSARD. We were then talking about the whole range of directly applicable Community instruments. Of course I realise that this Amendment is of more limited application. It does not attempt, as previous Amendments have done, to provide for the approval or re-enactment of directly applicable instruments. It relates only to the instruments which will be implemented under Clause 2(2). Nevertheless, I suggest that there are strong grounds for opposing it.
On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, the Government have fully accepted that there is a need for Parliament to make special arrangements by which we can deal with these matters, and there is no reason of course why parliamentary awareness should be limited to instruments which are to be implemented under Clause 2(2). We do not want limitations of the kind this Amendment suggests.
Apart from that it is wrong to try to write into a Bill which is concerned, as I have repeatedly said, with fulfilling our treaty obligations, parliamentary procedures which could and perhaps should be changed from time to time. It is for us, like the Germans or the Dutch who have not had to write this into any ratification procedure, to work out our own arrangements in the light of the various considerations which have been dealt with in debates.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) referred to


the efforts that we have tried to make—it does not matter whether or not it is an ad hoc committee—to induce the Opposition to consider the sort of procedures which would enable this Committee to have the fullest opportunity to consider all these matters as they come up and as the Community evolves. I hope that the Opposition will give us an opportunity as soon as possible to begin fruitful discussions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is his desire that this Committee should have the fullest possible discussions on these matters. I wonder whether he would be able to give some satisfaction to hon. Members from Northern Ireland on the point raised earlier, reminding him of his promise to us that on this Schedule we would have the opportunity to discuss something that is of vital constitutional concern in Northern Ireland today.

Mr. Rippon: As I indicated on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers there is an opportunity on this Schedule or on Clause 4 for constitutional matters to be raised. I certainly had not envisaged that we would spend a lot of time this afternoon in a debate upon the Community budget which we have thrashed out over and over again. That was the time available to raise new points, I should have thought. On the occasion that has been referred to I did give a firm assurance that there was nothing in the Bill affecting the constitutional position of Northern Ireland either at present or in future. I referred to what the Minister of State had said when he was dealing with this. Constitutional matters are adequately covered by the Bill, and my hon. Friend need have no anxiety on that score. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), relating to the safeguarding of employment, does not arise in this context.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talked about what he described as a flexible statutory provision. I would suggest that this is exactly what a statutory provision should not be. It should be precise and the legal consequences should be known. Under the Amendment it is not clear where the pro-

posal will arise. These matters are going through various stages in the Community and they change right up to the moment before adoption by the Council of Ministers. There would be considerable practical difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment. There are two points on the Amendment which demonstrate the need for a much more flexible approach to the problems of procedure.
If we try to build flexibility into the Bill it will not work. It simply becomes restrictive and inflexible. We have had a discussion already, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) took part, about the major and minor matters and how to draw a statutory distinction between them. The House will have to find ways of determining the proper procedure to be adopted when it faces a particular proposal from the Commission or the Council of Ministers. I do not think we want to write into the Bill something which would force a certain procedure to be adopted not only in respect of major matters but in respect of minor matters too. To require a Committee of each House to report on every proposal requiring implementation under Clause 2(2) which is primarily for matters of a subordinate nature would mean that a disproportionate amount of time would have to be wasted in considering items of little consequence. The volume of work would be entirely disproportionate to the benefit which might be acquired. It would cause terrible delay if there we reconsideration by a Committee of each House on every matter, and we might find ourselves in breach of Community obligations for mechanical reasons because we have forced upon ourselves something which would simply clog parliamentary time.
The limitation of parliamentary procedure to matters requiring implementation under Clause 2(2) means that either the Committee would need to consider and report on every proposal under consideration by the Commission in case Clause 2(2) powers were later involved, or that a long-term decision would need to be made on the use of Clause 2(2). All that would raise considerable practical difficulties, and for no benefit at all because the House retains all the time the control over its own procedures and the way it deals with these matters.
For these practical reasons, as well as for the issue of principle which we have debated over and over again, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

[MR. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I know that all hon. Members may wish to proceed at a fairly rapid pace to the other extremely important matters we wish to discuss. However, I must take one or two minutes to reply to what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said.
We on this side strongly support the Amendment and we hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will support it. It cannot be said by any hon. Member that this is an Amendment which has been put down by those who are actuated by antagonism to the Common Market or anything of that sort. The Amendment is supported by hon. Members on this side because we believe that it is important for Parliament.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a poor response to the proposals that have been made. He has said that the House can always alter its procedure or invent procedures for dealing with matters as they arise and that we always have the opportunity to do so. That seems to be the right hon. and learned Gentleman's main reply. It could be asked "Why should we take any action now because the House can always do it?" The fact is that the House is giving away a host of powers. The question is whether we shall take action at the same time as yielding those powers, either to the Executive here or in Europe, to ensure that we retain our powers. If we do not take positive steps to retain our powers, we shall not retain them. The history of Parliament is of the insistence by Parliament that it should retain its powers.
If we go back 300 years, it was said by our predecessors "We do not need to lay down any rules about the satisfaction of grievances before Supply. We do not have to have any provisions about that because Parliament can always come forward and say 'We would rather like to raise this matter with the Monarch—Charles I—if he is doing it wrongly', and we have ways of dealing with it in an

Adjournment debate." The history of England would be a different affair if we had not insisted on precise arrangements or powers.
There are two main reasons why we say this is so, and these are the main bones of contention between us on the matter, apart from the general reason which I have given that it should be put in the Bill. It is only if it is put in the Bill that the power of Parliament over the Executive is guaranteed. There is no guarantee if it is not in the Bill as it depends on the good will of the Government. At the moment it depends whether the Government like to come forward and give Parliament the power. It is only if Parliament insists now that we are absolutely certain of having the guarantee. That is the first reason.
The second reason why we on this side of the Committee—I should have thought hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly back benchers, and I still regard myself as an honorary back bencher, would be opposed to this—are thoroughly opposed either to the question of representation of the Assembly being settled outside the Floor of the House of Commons or to any question of the form of the restriction of the Statutory Instruments that are coming forward—the matters that are supposed to be dealt with by the so-called ad hoc committee—is that it means that they will be dealt with by the usual channels. The usual channels, perfectly proper organisations, are required to ensure that the House can do its business, but there are matters with which the usual channels are not qualified to deal.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides know that over the years there have been many arguments and criticisms about and of Patronage Secretaries when hon. Members have said that the selection of Members to go to certain bodies should not be left to the usual channels to decide.
There was an article in The Guardian recently complaining that the Labour Party had misbehaved in this matter in some way or other. The Guardian should have noted that we are proposing, as we argued before, means whereby this matter could be overcome. If we write into the Bill ways of dealing with the matter we remove it from the final


sanction of the usual channels and put the responsibility where it should belong—on the Floor of the House of Commons.
There should be no misunderstanding about the so-called ad hoc committee. We opposed it when it was first suggested. We said that the very matters which should be debated and decided in the House of Commons were now being proposed to be discussed by a private committee outside the House of Commons. We said that there was no objection to such discussions as long as matters were brought back to the House for decision.
At an earlier stage we put down an Amendment—I do not suggest that it was magnificently, brilliantly, infallibly framed—suggesting that the result of the ad hoc committee should be brought back to the House of Commons for decision, but the Government voted against it. That Amendment was not brilliantly framed but it was an arrangement designed to ensure that the final power over these matters should be retained by the House of Commons.
We are not prepared to accept the breezy word of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that we can deal with the matter in some other way at a future date by means which are not defined, particularly as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone out of his way, not merely on one Amendment but on about 100 Amendments, to reject the precise ways for dealing with the matter that we have tried to write into the Bill.
Many of our Amendments would have touched on matters which the Government could say would be delicate for the operation of the Common Market. I can understand that. However, not one of them was a wrecking Amendment. This Amendment does not touch on those matters, so the Government could perfectly well accept it. The Amendment does not interfere with the Government's obligations to the Common Market. The question facing the Committee is this: will the House of Commons insist on this last remnant of control by having words in the Bill, or will it leave the matter and accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances which do not mean anything? That is the question we have to face, and on that basis we can come to only one decision.
We know that the Minister and the Government do not consider these matters on their merits. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to the debate is further proof of the accusation we have made throughout. My sympathies are strongly with hon. Gentlemen representing Northern Ireland constituencies who raised these matters. They have every right to insist that they should be debated. As I said in an intervention earlier—perhaps I was out of order then, but I am absolutely in order now—the purpose of a Report stage in the House of Commons is to assist the Committee stage. To ensure a proper Committee stage there must be the possibility of a Report stage later, particularly when operating under the guillotine.
If we have a Report stage, the pledge given to hon. Gentlemen could be carried out. The Government would not have to dishonour their pledge, as they are doing; they would be able to honour it. If there were a Report stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not have to reply in the terms he did to two of my hon. Friends—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)—who, as is known, are sympathetic to our entry into the European Economic Community. If we had a Report stage, the Minister would not have had to reply in those terms. He could have said "I do not like the exact wording, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment and I shall be happy to put forward on Report a Government Amendment which will incorporate the minor adjustments".

Mr. Rippon: I am not saying that I do not like the precise wording. I am saying that what is proposed is wrong in principle.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I do not mind having parliamentary control as long as it is not precise enough to guarantee that the Government must observe it". As long as it does not commit him, he is prepared to give any kind of vague assurances which mean nothing.
But the Minister went on to say that he objected to certain aspects of the Amendment. The Government do not seem to understand our procedures. A Report stage is not only a question of


the time available. It is necessary to ensure the proper procedures over the previous stages of the Bill. If we deny the House of Commons the possibility of returning to matters which have been debated in Committee, we disrupt the Committee stage. The Government, because they have made up their mind not to have a Report stage, are casting reflection upon and injuring the way in which most of the Amendments are discussed in Committee. As the Committee stage proceeds, more and more Members are finding that their interests are injured. We on this side have thought that our interests have been injured. Some hon. Members on the Government side who have been righting a similar battle to ensure proper parliamentary protection have claimed that their interests are injured. Members from Northern

Ireland say that in the Bill their interests are being impaired, despite the obligation which the Government have entered into.

The Government are making a very grave error if they think that this is the right way to force through a Bill of this significance. I urge them to accept the Amendment. If, however, they are not prepared to accept it, I appeal to the Committee to accept it. If the Committee is not prepared to vote for a modest Amendment of this character which is designed to protect Parliament's rights, Parliament will be cutting its own throat.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 267, Noes, 278.

Division No. 232.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allen, Scholefield
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Biffen, John
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Body, Richard
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Booth, Albert
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ewing, Henry
Kelley, Richard


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell


Bradley, Tom
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Foley, Maurice
Lamond, James


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McBride, Neil


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McCartney, Hugh


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter
McElhone, Frank


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McGuire, Michael


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Mackie, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackintosh, John P.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Horam, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
McNamara, J. Kevin.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Maginnis, John E.




Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Marks, Kenneth
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Marsden, F.
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R


Marten, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Swain, Thomas


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taverne, Dick


Mayhew, Christopher
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Meacher, Michael
Prescott, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mendelson, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Probert, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Bruce
Rankin, John
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tuck, Raphael


Milne, Edward
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Urwin, T. W.


Moate, Roger
Richard, Ivor
Varley, Eric G.


Molloy, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roper, John
Wallace, George


Moyle, Roland
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Murray, Ronald King
Rowlands, Ted
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ogden, Eric
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Willey. Rt. Hn. Frederick


Oram, Bert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Woof, Robert


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel



Paisley, Rev. Ian
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Parker, John (Dagenham)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cockeram, Eric
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Coombs, Derek
Goodhew, Victor


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cooper, A. E.
Gorst, John


Astor, John
Cordle, John
Gower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Costain, A. P.
Grieve, Percy


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Batsford, Brian
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Benyon, W.
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dixon, Piers
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Blaker, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison Brian (Maldon)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boscawen, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Bray, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Buck, Antony
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Holland, Philip


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holt, Miss Mary



Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Fortescue, Tim
Hornby, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Cary, Sir Robert
Fowler, Norman
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Chapman, Sydney
Fox, Marcus
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fry, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hunt, John


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gibson-Watt, David
James, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)







Jessel, Toby
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mudd, David
Soref, Harold


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Speed, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sproat, Iain


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Steel, David


Kimball, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John
Stokes, John


Kinsey,J. R.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kirk, Peter
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


Lambton, Lord
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Lamont, Norman
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lane, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tilney, John


Lewis Kenneth (Rutland)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trew, Peter


Loveridge, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Luce, R. N.
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee W. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McCrindle, R. A.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


McLaren, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Waddington, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wall, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Madel, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill Bernard


Mather, Carol
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mawby, Ray

Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mills, Stratton, (Belfast, N.)
Rost, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Money, Ernle
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sharples, Richard



Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Hamish Gray and


More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles
Mr. Oscar Murton


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 446, in page 20, line 32, at end insert—
'(e) to alter the structure of the National Health Service'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discuss new Clause 10—National Health Service:
Any alteration of the National Health Service which may be necessary to implement the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Treaties shall be made by separate enactment.

Mr. Pavitt: On a previous occasion I said that Britain's terms of entry into the Common Market should be included in the Guinness Book of Records as the greatest pig in a poke of all time. In examining the possible effects of entry upon the National Health Service, I have come to the conclusion that it is also providing the greatest illusion since the days of Maskeleyn and Devant of a bureaucracy magically appearing as a participating democracy. Pharmacists, doctors, opticians, dentists—a myriad of committees has been set up sending people dashing backwards and forwards between the United Kingdom and Brussels, with negligible results on centralised decisions.
It is essential that this Amendment should be accepted because of the fog of obscurity covering the Government's statements.
I start with the Government's categorical assurance in paragraph 90 of the White Paper (Command 4715). Of a total of 169 paragraphs, the National Health Service gets one short sentence at the end of a paragraph dealing mainly with pensions:
Accession to the Community will not alter in any way the National Health Service.
I pursued this matter with the Prime Minister. In an answer to me on 23rd May, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Generally, the Common Market will move to a situation in which the costs of industry…are approximately the same."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1220.]
If that happens, the way in which Britain pays for health may be drastically altered, because it could be claimed that it provided a subsidy to industry, giving unfair advantage to Britain as a competitor for EEC markets.
In about 20 minutes, we shall try to safeguard 25 years' work in building our National Health Service. However, that is the way that the guillotine works. For that reason, however, there is no time to give a complete analysis of the health provision in the Six countries, each different but all having in common one of the following three factors: direct payment by employers and employees; an insurance basis of coverage; only partial coverage, with some payments by patients and recovery on the claw-back principle.
To summarise some of the main points of difference, in Belgium, for example, the patient recovers only three-quarters of the fee for treatment and three-quarters of the cost of medicines. Hospitals are free, but one in 10 is private and not free. After 10 days in hospital, a special authorisation must be given.
France has the highest rate of contributions. There is a tariff of permitted treatment, and only those sums are reimbursed for doctors within the scheme. Doctors outside the scheme get only 80 per cent. reimbursement. The patient pays 30 per cent. of the cost of medicines except for a few life savers. He pays 20 per cent. of his hospital bill.
Italy organises through a number of sick funds each differing in the scale of its contributions and benefits. The best compare well with our National Health Service. Most medicines are free, but not proprietary medicines. In this country, some 75 per cent. of medicines are proprietaries. That gives the Committee a measure of the difference. The patient pays 50 per cent. of medical care.
In Luxembourg, as in Italy, benefits differ from one fund to another. There is an approved list of medicines, with only those on the list being approved, and funds must pay at least 75 per cent. On average, the patient pays between 10 and 20 per cent. on a reimbursement basis. The Netherlands scheme applies only to those earning less than £800 a year.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is going to read his speech, would he read it more slowly so that we may follow it?

Mr. Pavitt: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, but I am endeavouring to get this and another Amendment through before the guillotine falls at 11 o'clock.
Only 50 per cent. of the doctors in the Netherlands are in the scheme. In Germany there is a prescription charge and doctors may prescribe free medicines up to a total limit of their drug bill. The Amendment is seeking to protect the National Health Service against the possible effect of harmonisation because, although this may take some years, my main concern is that the pressure towards an insurance system as opposed to our comprehensive system could lead to a serious erosion of the National Health Service.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Social Services for putting his finger on my basic fear in my recent representations to him. I was raising with the Prime Minister the fact that Dr. E. Grey-Turner, the Deputy Secretary of the British Medical Association, and our British observer on the Standing Committee of the doctors of the EEC, spoke in Luxembourg and was widely reported in this country. He gave it as his opinion that
in order to overcome the financial problems of the health service and to harmonise with continental systems it would be likely in the long run that we should move more towards a system of direct charges and rely less on taxation for financing the Health Service.
The Secretary of State sought to allay my fears, and I give the Committee his very forthright statement, for which I am most grateful. He said:
I have made it clear in the House that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome or in the Community Regulations which would require us to change the method of financing our social services. This is still the position. It may be of interest to note that there are proposals before the Italian Parliament to introduce a National Health Service financed out of taxation which appears to be a move towards our system.
I welcome that assurance and I can see no reason why, in the light of that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot support his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services by accepting the Amendment and making it obvious that there will be no change in the existing structure.
The Secretary of State for Social Services is right in putting his finger on the

most important fear that we have, and that is that the financing and provision of services will be altered drastically from the system that we have established. The best way in which a comprehensive health service can be financed is comprehensively by the Treasury. At the moment 85 per cent. of the bill comes from taxation. This is the fairest and simplest way in which it should be met.
The second area of concern with which I want to deal is no less important. There is a mass of directives which will affect doctors, dentists, opticians, nurses, mid-wives, pharmacists, and all the professions supplementary to medicine, such as radiographers, physiotherapists, and other para-medical staff. At the same time, the directives will alter the way in which these disciplines serve the patient in the National Health Service.
I have time to take up only one example, that of the directive on the freedom of establishment for doctors. If complete recognition of each other's qualifications takes place, United Kingdom standards could be endangered, and here I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, for figures of comparability.
Qualified medical practitioners in the E.E.C. and those in the United Kingdom can be compared only when they take a common examination, and the only common examination for which we have statistics is the Educational Council for Foreign Medical Graduates in the United States of America, and I take the figures from the 1970 results.
France had 162 doctors sitting for the examination, of whom 78 passed, giving a failure rate of 51·9 per cent. Germany had 964 candidates, 490 of whom passed and 474 failed, giving a failure rate of more than 50 per cent. From Italy there were 530 candidates, of whom only 180 passed, giving a 66 per cent. failure rate. From the United Kingdom there were 566 passes out of 610 candidates, which was an 8·6 per cent. failure rate.
If there is that kind of comparability, it could be that we need to alter the legislation which governs the General Medical Council. That should be a matter for the House, and therefore the Amendment is necessary. Secondly, if there were to be free establishment across the borders we would be in danger of


standards here falling. No studies have been conducted of the effect in all these fields upon medical and para-medical manpower of our entering the Common Market.
To take a simple example, Italy has 90,000 doctors and the United Kingdom has 60,000 doctors, yet the population of both countries is approximately the same. It may well be that it would be a good thing for more Italian doctors to come here: we are short of doctors. As I say, no study has been conducted of the effect of this change and the Committee is able to devote only 20 minutes, after 10 o'clock at night, to discuss this important question.
It is a scandal and an affront to three quarters of a million devoted National Health Service workers that the Committee has no chance to challenge in depth directives which can change and erode a Health Service which is the finest in the world and which has taken a generation to build.
On medicines, EEC directive No. 2 has already had its effect. Our exports to the EEC dropped last year from an increase of 35 per cent. the previous year to only 8 per cent., because no British export was allowed unless the company had a factory in the Six. So British companies have put factories in the Six.
The concern amongst opticians is widespread. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence between their relevant organisations and the Department of Health and Social Security. I take little comfort from the letter I received from the Minister of State in which he said this:
The Community will consult the candidate members…We have no reason to believe that the draft directives will reach a point where the Council of Ministers will give their approval to them before there is an opportunity to discuss them with the Community.
A little while after that I read a Press report under the heading—
EEC in a hurry on pharmacy directives". 
It continued:
There was an impression that some people, particularly the EEC Commission, would like to get the directives concerning pharmacists and doctors through in 1972, Mr. H. N. Roffey of the Department of Health said recently.
Therefore, we have the Minister saying one thing and a senior civil servant indi-

cating that there are grounds for real concern. The Amendment seeks to safeguard that concern.
There are so many peripheral matters. I accept that this whole subject is pheripheral to the major matters which have been under discussion in this Committee. The Committee will know I have been specially concerned about deafness and deaf people. In 1970 the National Health Service issued free of charge 255,258 Medresco hearing aids at a cost of£783,000. Phillips of Holland and West Germany manufacturing companies might regard the free issue of hearing aids in Britain as unfair competition because all those companies have export outlets here, and pressure might be brought to bear that charges should be made here in an attempt to harmonise with what is going on in other countries.
With this Amendment we are discussing new Clause No. 10 which would give the further safeguard that any changes that may be made to the National Health Service as a result of EEC harmonisation would have to be enacted in the House of Commons.
It must not be that, in addition to the exorbitant price we are to pay on these terms of entry, an additional charge will be the acceptance of lower standards of health care or that we resort to differing standards of health care so that those who are rich or heavily insured will be able to get a first class service and there will be a lower standard for the rest.
Because I want to retain our basic socialist principle of mutualacceptance—this has gone on for the last generation—that those healthy and earning pay for the sick, the disabled, the aged and the inadequate in their time of need, with no second payment demanded, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment. The Government have already given me assurances in correspondence and in other ways. I ask that they should now ratify those assurances by accepting the Amendment. If the Amendment were carried, it would be some earnest of the Government's intention that a service which affects every man, woman and child in this country should not be eroded by our entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I count myself fortunate to be called by you, Mr. Mallalieu,


especially when there are in the Chamber three of my right hon. Friends, who are opposed to the Bill and presumably in favour of the Amendment, who have all been Ministers of Health. But I see why they have not risen to the defence of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The hon. Member put forward a case of such rubbishy nature that it deserves outright rejection by the Committee. He seemed to be implying that, because health was generally a worthy cause, it must be wrong for us to join the Community and be subjected to nasty foreign health services, administrations doctors, Pharmaceuticals and the like.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have so little faith in the form of change and radicalism. It is curious the way that the Opposition benches have become the repository of conservatism. With the Health Service strangled by lack of funds, short of resources, unable to modernise because the country cannot afford to devote what it should to the service, it is curious that the hon. Gentleman should cling doggedly to the present system of finance and close his mind absolutely to any change and, incidentally, close his mind to the possibility that the National Health Service and the provisions for health would gain from the increased wealth which might come from Community membership.
The hon. Gentleman's example of Socialist dogma in clinging to the particular system of financing of the Health Service we have had over the last 20 years shows how, in a curious way, the Labour Party is not prepared to accept Europe for reasons of clinging to the past and not being able to look to the future.
The hon. Gentleman's talk about doctors and the standard of admission to the doctoring profession alarmed me. His talk of the rejection rate in Italy, Germany and other countries seemed to illustrate just how high the standards were. But the inference of his remarks was that somehow or other we would become tainted by this flood of European doctors, which would influence our noble medical profession and bring down its standards.
As a country which has absorbed tens of thousands of doctors from all over the world, from Commonwealth coun-

tries and other countries, Britain can surely be proud of the open door she has held for our medical profession. To deny this now to the Europeans seems to smack of not only xenophobia but also of anti-Europeanism of a rampant sort.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke about hearing aids, he surprised me. He seemed to imply that because hearing aids were free in this country, that in some way would attract nasty foreign hearing aids on to our market to destroy manufacturers' profits and do no good service to the deaf. This was linked, as always, with the connotation that because the hon. Gentleman said it—he has a great interest in this matter and has done a great deal of work for the deaf; I freely acknowledge that—this would be wicked, wrong and misconceived.
That is not the way to argue about Europe. This is not the right sort of Amendment to table, let alone to press. Even if carried, the Amendment would simply mean that if the Community were to legislate upon health matters and the organisation of national health services, it would have to be done by a Bill going through Parliament rather than by an order under Clause 2(2). It would therefore in no sense impede the progress of the reform if the Government of the day were minded to accept the proposal, to agree to it in Brussels and to put the necessary legislation through the House. The Amendment was merely a peg upon which to hang a xenophobic argument, bringing out the worst anti-Europeanism on the Labour benches. It was an entirely bogus speech on an entirely bogus Amendment which I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will not press.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: We have just heard one of the most appalling and dishonest speeches ever delivered in this House, [Interruption.] I have never heard the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) utter a word on behalf of the blind, the deaf and the disabled. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why some hon. Members on the Government benches find so much humour in the subject of the crippled, the blind and the deaf. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Those hon. Members on the Conservative benches who take an interest in


these matters will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden West (Mr. Pavitt) is one of the most devoted Members to the cause of the disabled, the blind and the deaf. It is in that context that I find the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury so nauseating and disgusting. I give him only one thing in his favour. He is an authority on what should be rejected because he is a reject.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is a failure.

Mr. Molloy: Of course he is a complete failure. The only thing the Prime Minister has been able to recognise recently has been the total failure of the hon. Member. That is why the hon. Member was sacked.
We are asking in the Amendment that no power to alter the structure of the National Health Service shall be provided in Schedule 2. If the structure of the Health Service is safeguarded and cannot be altered we could encourage nations in Europe to emulate what we have done and improve their health services. We should in no way lower the standards of the Health Service in this country.
My hon. Friend advanced a remarkably good argument which should find favour with both pro- and anti-marketeers. Those who are apprehensive about our entry will have this safeguard and those who favour entry can say that Britain will take with her when she joins something to enhance the E.E.C.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) rightly pointed out that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has a background of long and respected service to the House on the subject of the disabled. But that does not mean that we cannot point out that the argument the hon. Gentleman used tonight was clearly false and, what is more, dangerous. I am sorry to have to say that both he and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) have used the fears which might arise in those who are disabled, deaf and ill in a cause which ill befits them.
I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North used the words that he used. What he is doing, and what the Amendment is doing, is to raise wholly

unjustified fears in the minds of those in our community least able to sustain them. It was for that reason that my hon. Friend was so direct in his answer to what the hon. Member for Willesden, West said. Having listened to many speeches by the hon. Gentleman, I felt that on this occasion he fell away from his usual standard in addressing us, and I think that on reflection he will admit that.
It is wrong to raise on this Bill, and on an Amendment of the kind before us, fears which no one in his right mind could possibly raise. It has nothing to do with our entry into the European Economic Community that Philips, for example, manufactures hearing aids and might wish to continue to sell on the British market hearing aids which it already sells.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Philips sells admirable hearing aids already. But the point is that in a system where there must be fair competition between the countries, if some countries need to sell aids and our country gives them away free, that provides an opportunity to say that there is unfair competition between those aids being given free and those being sold. Therefore, that can be regarded as a possible breaking of the basic principle of the Common Market.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. First, the position cannot be so regarded as long as Philips can tender for the free hearing aid service like any other company. When we enter the European Economic Community it will be able to tender for the Government contract on the same terms as everyone else, and no Amendment of the Schedule will make any difference to that. Secondly, Italy is thinking of implementing a system very similar to our own. Therefore, it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to raise this unnecessary fear in people's minds. It has nothing to do with our entry into the Common Market, and the objection of many of us is to the raising of the matter at all. It is neither responsible nor fair of Members, particularly those who have a reputation in the field, to use this method of raising fears among people who can least sustain them.
The comments on doctors were deplorable. The suggestion that the medical competence of a Dutch doctor is ipso


facto lower than that of a British doctor is ludicrous, and it is very odd coming from a party supposed to be internationalist and from a representative who is both Labour and Co-operative, a party which is supposed to be in favour of our entry into the European Economic Community.
People must not jump on to any cheap bandwagon in order to attack the European Economic Community. It is most unfair in the discussion here to use the poorest and saddest members of our society to raise unnecessary fears.
The suggestion that British manufacturers were no longer able to sell within the EEC medicines they had been able to sell up to now, because the EEC was insisting that a large proportion of medicines should be sold from within the Six, is surely one of the best reasons for our entering the Community. When we are within the EEC we shall have open to us that market which the hon. Gentleman says is increasingly closed to us because we are outside. He cannot use that argument to suggest that we should change the Schedule.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are genuine fears about what might happen to the National Health Service when we go into the EEC? Given that fact, should not the Government accept the Amendment and by doing so remove those fears entirely?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman could stir up fears on any subject—for example, on the quality of milk when we enter the EEC, or about the number of greyhound tracks. He could put down a proposition that we should guard against those aspects. We believe that these fears are unnecessary—so unnecessary that anyone should be ashamed of stirring them up. When we are debating this very serious Bill, we should realise that there are genuine fears in the country. Many of them have been articulated honestly by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are opposed to our entry. But it does not help the case against entry to raise questions in this way which cannot, were not and will not be sustained by any hon. Member in logic.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Alison.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I want to seek your ruling. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland have tried all this evening to get in on the Committee stage. They have been ruled out of order in their wish to discuss matters concerning Northern Ireland and now the Under-Secretary of State will betaking time to reply to points related to the issue before the Committee. No hon. Member from Northern Ireland will be heard. The Government have given us a solid assurance that on Schedule 2 our voices could be heard. Why have they now gone back on their solemn promise, and why are we ruled completely out of order?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is very little to do with the Schedule, if anything.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I refer you to what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on 14th June last. Addressing the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), he said:
My hon Friend should make sure that there is not a change in the majority in this House.
On the constitutional point, there will be a further opportunity to debate this matter on Clause 4 and Schedule 2."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1588.]
We are now discussing Schedule 2 and therefore I suggest that it is in order for me to rise and ask why the promise solemnly made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not going to be fulfilled.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman may well have an opportunity to speak after the Under-Secretary of State has finished.

[SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) made a characteristically well-researched speech in his expression of misgiving about the connection between the Bill and the future


of the National Health Service, but he was building very much too elaborate a superstructure upon a very narrow foundation of argument.
The Government have made it abundantly clear that accession to the Communities will not alter the National Health Service in any way. The hon. Gentleman complained that paragraph 90 in the White Paper stated these facts rather succinctly and briefly, as though it were some sort of insult to the N.H.S. that it should receive so cavalier, brief and casual a reference. The simple reason for the brevity of the allusion is simple. The treaties, including the Treaty of Rome, have little to say about health care. Within the countries of the existing Community, the health provisions vary a great deal, as they do between the Six and ourselves, not only in the form of services available to the public at large but also as social security benefits in kind provided in return for contributions by insured workers or beneficiaries and their families. Each country has a system of its own.
10.45 p.m.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, will recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the House when he said:
There is no legal requirement upon us to change in any way our social security system or health care system if we join the Common Market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1113.]
The hon. Member for Willesden, West raised a point about the supply of hearing aids. I listened with some sympathy to his point, and with interest, because he has a point which bears on the welfare of the deaf. We both take a close concern in matters concerning the hard of hearing. I can assure him that providing We obey fair contracting rules in purchasing aids for the National Health Service sector, and we would be bound to do this, and we would do—we would consider Philips and Oticon, for example, as well as STC—it is not unfair competition to dispense National Health Service aids with a coexisting private sector. It is not inconceivable that the service—and here I am speaking entirely in a prophetic and hypothetical sense, which is a dangerous

thing to do—might at some stage even wish to give precedence to Philips or Oticon. However these matters, on which the hon. Member is an expert, lie very much in the future and we are confident that charges of unfair competition could not arise in any foreseeable situation.
Had this not been so, had there been anything in the Treaty or something hidden in the small print, in the "back alleys" of the secondary legislation, which required us to make some fundamental alteration to the structure of the National Health Service, as the Amendment and the New Clause imply, the Government would not only have been bound to make this clear in the White Paper but we would have done so and would have included a suitable Clause in Part II of the Bill.
There is no such provision, either in the Treaty or the secondary legislation of the Communities—and I am sure that this was well known to the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power and when it made the United Kingdom application to join the Communities in 1967. We can honestly assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing has changed since then.
If the object of the Amendment is to play on the fears of those members of the healing professions who are engaged in or in any way connected with, the National Health Service—this was implied by a most eloquent and penetrating speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) who said that there was this element of motivation, a stirring-up of anxiety among those dedicated servants of the NHS at all levels and in all parts of it in the light of the uncertainties associated in the public mind over accession—I can only say that the movers of the Amendment are doing no service to those hard-working people or to the NHS as a whole.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Despite the reference to the penetrating speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), is it not a fact that entry to the Community envisages the free movement of labour, including labour in the professions? Will the Minister say whether the provisions, for example, of the Dental Act and the professional levels we insist upon for dentists, and the provisions of the Opticians Act, 1959, and the


professional skills we insist upon are to be applied to professional workers who will be able to come and work in this country when by general consent, despite what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West says, the same standards of training do not apply? That is a matter of some importance.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) and I have a number of contacts and friends in common in the optical world. He and I recently attended a big celebration at which, informally, these very matters were discussed. [Interruption.] These matters are of some concern, despite the casual barracking of hon. Members who take no close interest in them. We are very much in touch with the professional people to whom the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange has referred and the misgivings which have been voiced by both the optical and dental professions. It is precisely to this point that I am now addressing myself.
It is true—let us hope that this was in the mind of the hon. Member for Willesden, West in tabling the Amendment and the new Clause—thatthe Community has prepared draft directives relating to the freedom of establishment of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and opticians as well as to activities in the pharmaceutical sphere. I can reassure the Committee that these are drafts. The stage of consultation and negotiation on such matters has not yet begun between the organisations of the Community and the acceding States, including ourselves. In preparation for that time we have been and will continue to be in the closest possible consultation with the registering bodies and the professional organisations concerned. The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange will know what I mean by "the registering bodies and the professional organisations concerned." We share with them the determination that entry into the Community should not result in any diminution in standards of health care.

Dr. Miller: Is the Under-Secretary not seized of the fact that the British Medical Association, which is not an organisation well known for radical views on this matter, has come out clearly with a statement that it is afraid that medical standards will fall? Is the hon. Gentleman

aware that this fear has been expressed by the B.M.A?

Mr. Alison: I think the B.M.A. is treading on rather delicate ground in daring to use the future tense in such a categorical sense, because the regulations are in draft. They are still subject to discussion. We shall have a full opportunity of participating in the discussions which will lead to their conclusion. We have repeatedly expressed, and I reaffirm tonight, that the Government's view is that it is unacceptable that the regulations, when finalised, should result in any diminution of standards of health care.

Mr. Molloy: Then why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Alison: This exercise of consultation and negotiation will continue at a pace which, judging from the time the draft directives have been under consideration, is unlikely to be hurried. There is nothing in the drafts so far involving any alteration in the National Health Service.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North, in a seated intervention, asked "Why not accept the Amendment?" I have already said that accession to the Communities will not entail any alterations in the National Health Service. I suggest that the argument that we should accept both the Amendment and the new Clause, based upon the contents of Clause 2(2), reveals a misconception of the nature of that Clause.
Part I of the Bill is intended to set up an enduring framework for our Community membership. It provides, contingently at least, for the whole sphere of Community policies. For this reason no attempt has been made to identify in advance the areas within which Clause 2(2) powers should operate or from which they should be excluded.
There are many matters in addition to the National Health Service with which this Amendment and the new Clause are concerned, which we can say categorically are outside the scope of the Communities and the Treaties as at present constituted. However, there is no occasion to specify all these matters which are excluded and to state expressly that Clause 2 shall not apply to them. That would be oppressively burdensome


and the list of exclusions would be limitless.
Clause 2(2) already confers power for instruments to be made
for the purpose of any Community obligation of the United Kingdom or
for related purposes. Where no such obligation exists, the Clause does not bite and it stands in no need of amendment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister said that there will be discussions later in negotiations and that is one reason why he is not accepting the Amendment. Is he not aware—I think he is—that the Minister for Transport Industries has been having discussions on the question of heavy lorries. He has said that he is very annoyed and upset by the obduracy of the Common Market countries on this issue. If there were a Clause in the Bill which bound him to accept the will of the Committee on that matter, would not he be strengthened in his negotiations? Equally, if as may well be the case when later he negotiates on this issue, will he not be able to speak from strength if he is bound by the will and decision of the Committee on this issue?

Mr. Alison: There is a great deal of the hypothetical in that intervention.

Sir Gilbert Longden: May I for the record say that the Minister of Transport Industries has told me in the House that he has the necessary power to restrict

lorries in this country to 32 tons and that he will exercise that power?

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I assure the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that we have found neither obstinacy nor obduracy in the constructive tone in which the draft regulations have been discussed with the Community. We are fully confident that we shall without any difficulty be able to safeguard any interests which may arise under the National Health Service.
Without any hesitation, I invite the Committee to reject both the Amendment and the new Clause.

Mr. Pavitt: I have not time to reply adequately to the debate. I do not resent the swingeing attack of hon. Members opposite, but I wish to leave the Committee with this comment. I know the National Health Service. I have done my homework. I have seen the directives. I assure hon. Members opposite that I have raised this matter in no light way. I moved the Amendment in the sincere belief that the National Health Service is one of our great heritages which needs preserving. I am not looking at the past; I am looking at the future.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 265, Noes 278.

Division No. 233.]
AYES
[10.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Driberg, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Edelman, Maurice


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Fred


Biffen, John
Cronin, John
Ewing, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Faulds, Andrew


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)




Body, Richard
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Booth, Albert
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Foley, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foot, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Reginald


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gilbert, Dr. John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry




Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hardy, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Roper, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rose, Paul B.


Hart, Rt. Kn. Judith
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hattersley, Roy
Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marsden, F.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Horam, John
Marten, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Milne, Edward
Stallard, A. W.


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Janner, Greville
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Molyneaux, James
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Tinn, James


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oakes, Gordon
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Kelley, Richard
Oram, Bert
Varley, Eric G.


Kerr, Russell
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin


Kilfedder, James
Orme, Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Kinnock, Neil
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Lamborn, Harry
Padley, Walter
Wallace, George


Lamond, James
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Watkins, David


Latham, Arthur
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wellbeloved, James


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Leonard, Dick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitehead, Phillip


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pendry, Tom
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McBride, Neil
Rankin, John
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
 Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Robert
Churchill, W. S.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Braine, Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bray, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Coombs, Derek


Awdry, Daniel
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cooper, A. E.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bryan, Paul
Cordle, John


Balniel, Lord
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony
Cormack, Patrick


Batsford, Brian
Burden, F. A.
Costain, A. P.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Crouch, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Campbell, Rt Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Crowder, F. P.


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James


Blakar, Peter
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dean, Paul


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.







Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Lord
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Merchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Foster, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fowler, Norman
Luce, R. N.
Simeons, Charles


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Soref, Harold


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Steel, David


Gower, Raymond
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)



Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernle
Tebbit, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles
Tilney, John


Havers, Michael
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Trew, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wall, Patrick


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John
Walters, Dennis


Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornby, Richard
Pardoe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wilkinson, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Younger, Hn. George


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
 Mr. Victor Goodhew


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That this Schedule be the second Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division:

Rev. Ian Paisley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. The Chancellor of the Duchy made a promise that, on this Schedule, an opportunity would be given to Northern Ireland Mem-

bers to discuss a very important constitutional point. If this vote is taken, there will be no opportunity for any further discussion on Schedule 2. May we have your assurance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other promise—that we shall be allowed to discuss the matter on the Question, That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill—will not be broken in a similar fashion?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's point has nothing to do with the Chair.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 277, Noes 269.

Division No. 234.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Holland, Philip


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
Holt, Miss Mary


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hordern, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dykes, Hugh
Hornby, Richard


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eden, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
Hunt, John


Balniel, Lord
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
James, David


Batsford, Brian
Fidler, Michael
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Blaker, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
Jopling, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Boscawen, Robert
Fowler, Norman
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fox, Marcus
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kimball, Marcus


Bray, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
King, Eveyln (Dorset, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Burden, F. A.
Gorst, John
Lambton, Lord


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gower, Raymond
Lamont, Norman




Lane, David


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Mark
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grieve, Percy
Le Merchant, Spencer


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Longden, Gilbert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grylls, Michael
Loveridge, John


Churchill, W. S.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Luce, R. N.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cockeram, Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McLaren, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Coombs, Derek
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cordle, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maddan, Martin


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Haselhurst, Alan
Madel, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Costain, A. P.
Havers, Michael
Mather, Carol


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heseltine, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Dean, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hiley, Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman


Dixon, Piers
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hills, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)




Money, Ernle
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Monks, Miss Connie
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tebbit, Norman


Monro, Hector
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M.


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


More, Jasper
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Morrison, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mudd, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Murton, Oscar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter


Neave, Airey
Royle, Amhony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Normanton, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Onslow, Cranley
Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Osborn, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wall, Patrick


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)




Page, Graham (Crosby)
Simeons, Charles
Walters, Dennis


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Ward, Dame Irene


Pardoe, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Parkinson, Cecil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Peel, John
Soref, Harold
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Speed, Keith
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Pink R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stainton, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Steel, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Worsley, Marcus


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Raison, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Younger, Hn. George


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stokes, John



Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redmond, Robert
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Biffen, John
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Horam, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Body, Richard
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Booth, Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellis, Tom
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Fred
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ewing, Harry
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




John, Brynmor


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kerr, Russell


Concannon, J. D.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kilfedder, James


Conlan, Bernard
Golding, John
Kinnock, Neil


Crawshaw, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lambie, David


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Lamborn, Harry


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lamond, James







Latham, Arthur
Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis


Leonard, Dick
Oakes, Gordon
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oram, Bert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lipton, Marcus
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Strang, Gavin


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Padley, Walter
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Swain, Thomas


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


McCartney, Hugh
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McElhone, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McGuire, Michael
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tinn, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomney, Frank


Mackie, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Torney, Tom


Mackintosh, John P.
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


Maclennan, Robert
Pentland, Norman
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Urwin, T. W.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Varley, Eric G.


Maginnis, John E.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Prescott, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoushton)



Marks, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marsden, F.
Probert, Arthur
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


Marten, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mayhew, Christopher
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


Meacher, Michael
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Roderick, CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Miller, Dr. M. S
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Milne, Edward
Roper, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Moate, Roger
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Molloy, William
Rowlands, Edward
Woof, Robert


Molyneaux, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

It being after Eleven o'clock The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [2nd May].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I must begin—and this is no reflection on the Chair—by apologising to hon. Members from

London constituencies for the lateness of the hour at which we are taking this business. It is usually taken at 7 o'clock. It is a matter of great difficulty to London Members that it should be taken as late as this, and I hope the fact that we are taking it so late will not in any way diminish the awareness of hon. Members of the importance of the Measure.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for being here to represent the Government's interest should that be called upon in our debate.
The Bill is familiar to all London Members on both sides of the House. It is a GLC Money Bill, and its rejection would result in the GLC, the Inner London Education Authority and all the various London boroughs and bodies such as London Transport being without funds after 30th September. It is


not too much to say—it is in no sense an exaggeration—that if the Bill were by some unhappy chance rejected or failed to get through the House London would come to a halt.
It is only necessary to look at the list of items set out in the Schedule to see the basic nature of the Bill to the life of our city. Item 2 provides for the layout of open spaces and contributions towards green belt schemes. Item 5 provides for the construction and improvement of metropolitan roads. Item 6 provides for the improvement of the River Thames. Item 7 provides for the equipment of schools. I shall not bore the House by recounting all the things which the Bill does. The Schedule is needed to show that every major function of London life is involved.
At this stage it is appropriate to make it clear that the purposes for which the Bill is seeking money have been approved not only by the Tory-controlled Greater London Council but also by the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority. In other words, not only does the Bill cover every aspect of London life but, to that extent, it could be said to have bipartisan support as well.
The House will notice that there has been one substantial change from previous practice in the way in which the Bill is laid out. I refer here to a matter which is close to the heart of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay); namely, Item 5, which concerns metropolitan roads. For those who have not had an opportunity to study the Bill in detail, Item 5 groups all the metropolitan road items into one section instead of listing them separately.
This is a novel feature concerning roads. But I emphasise that it is not a novel feature for the Bill. The change simply brings roads into line with previous practice on, for instance, open spaces, Item 2, or the provision of funds under the Education Act, Item 7. Hon. Members who care to look at the Bill will see that, although roads are a much more important item in terms of expenditure, if not amenity, than Item 2, they are, equally, less important in terms of financial provision than Item 7. So, although this is a change in terms of layout, it does not represent a novel principle.
Hon. Members may well wonder why the GLC has decided to bring about this change in the Bill this year. It is right that the House should know the reasons for this alteration, of which there are two. The first reason is that, by grouping the items together, the full picture of the Council's borrowing requirements for highway purposes can be shown in one place. Hitherto it has been necessary to examine eight different items in the Schedule. I emphasise that all the various items in the Schedule have been listed separately in an appendix, and members of the public and Members of Parliament can, if they wish, see the individual items. But eight items is a great deal, and it has been found in the past that difficulties arose if expenditure on one or other of the items overshot the mark and it was necessary to seek approval for a small amount of money to cover the particular item. By grouping them together in this way the work of the Council is greatly assisted, as is probably the work of the House.
Roads represent an extremely controversial issue. Some right hon. and hon. Members have been deeply concerned with the GLC's plans for new road building for some time. I appreciate that there is concern outside the House over some of the road building plans which have been announced. As I have said, it is possible to check the individual items on the separate list. But I should like to make one thing absolutely clear. Although the Council is seeking the permission of the House to spend money on a wide range of projects, I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is in no sense pre-judging the results of any public inquiries. The Council is seeking money for projects upon which it hopes it will be able to embark at some point during the period for which the Bill runs. But if permission is not granted as a result of a public inquiry, naturally the scheme does not go ahead, the money is not spent for that purpose, and approval can be sought to spend the money on something else.
It is a matter of the greatest importance to understand that the GLC is in no sense pre-judging any public inquiries or any other matters of that sort. It is simply seeking the permission of the House to undertake projects which it would like


to undertake and upon which it hopes to be able to embark.
Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the provision for London Transport contained in the Bill. I should have liked to be in a position to provide more information for hon. Members who have expressed interest in that particular point.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton) indicated assent.

Mr. Tugendhat: I see the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) nodding in agreement with that at least, even if we do not agree entirely on everything that is contained in the Bill. The hon. Member has long experience of Greater London Council affairs and will perhaps realise the difficulty I am in.
The provision of £8 million comprises basically two principal items, one of £3 million which is earmarked for the 25 per cent. grants for major railway extensions and another of £5 million which will be allocated to specific projects in due course. Those specific projects, however, have yet to be chosen and authorised by the policy and resources committee of the GLC. I know that this is a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Acton, although I think he will agree with me that the GLC in this matter is behaving in accordance with precedent.
The hour is late, the Bill is important. In view of the late sittings we are having this week and are likely, I believe, to have for some time to come, I felt that the House would not wish me to go in detail through every item in the Bill. I am, of course, prepared to do so in summing up if that proves to be the wish of the House, but I felt that a gentle canter through the course would be the most acceptable option at this stage.
I hope, however, that the fact that I have gone fairly quickly through the main points of the Bill will not detract from the importance of this Measure. Unless it is passed by the House, the GLC, the Inner London Education Authority, all the London boroughs and many other bodies besides, such as London Transport, will be completely without funds. I cannot believe that any hon. Member on either side would wish that to happen. I therefore have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Although the hour is late we are no longer suffering under a guillotine, which is a pleasant change. As the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) has said, the Bill authorises capital expenditure for the Greater London Council for a number of purposes, including, according to the Schedule, Part I, Item 5,
Acquisition of property and execution of works for construction and improvement of metropolitan roads.
With most of the Bill I do not think any of us would quarrel, and I agree with the hon. Member that as it contains many highly desirable proposals nobody, I imagine, would wish to vote against the Bill as a whole. What some of us wish to do is to query the suggestion that we should in any way sanction in the Bill any proposals for destroying houses in the middle of the present grievous housing shortage in order to build urban motorways.
This is plainly a matter which concerns this House, both because such motorway expenditure would attract, I understand, a 75 per cent. grant from the Exchequer and because the destruction of houses for the purpose of building urban motorways and other major roads within residential London by the Greater London Council is a major cause of the present acute housing shortage and the exorbitantly high prices for houses which those of us who represent London constituencies find to be the greatest single anxiety of our constituents.
It is no good the Government for their part protesting that they are trying to do all they can to keep house prices down and at the same time permitting the destruction of perfectly good homes for the sake of building motorways, the more so indeed if the Government are encouraging such destruction by the offer of a 75 per cent. grant.
Very little detail was originally given in the Bill concerning the projects on which this money would be spent. We were merely told that for roads about £7 million would be required for the year ending 31st March, 1973, and £4 million for the six months ending September, 1973. First, therefore, we should have more details than we have had of


the proposed expenditure. Does it involve—if it is the hon. Member rather than the Government who is taking on a god fatherly responsibility for the Bill—the purchase and destruction of houses and flats, and, if so, how many? Is that included in what is euphemistically called the "acquisition of property"? What number of people would be displaced and added to the housing waiting lists as a result of the expenditure here proposed?
The items of road expenditure included, although large at first sight, are only a fraction of the grotesque sum of £2,000 million which the GLC is seeking to spend on primary roads in the whole of its grandiose London motorway development scheme—a sum greater than the cost of the British share in Concorde, the third London Airport and the Channel Tunnel put together.
Those who are critical of this road programme as being a huge misallocation of resources, and particularly of the disastrous effect that it would have on housing and living conditions in many parts of London, have recently refrained from raising this issue directly with Ministers in the House because it is being exhaustively studied by the panel of inquiry headed by Mr. Frank Layfield into the whole of the Greater London Development Plan. In passing, I pay tribute to the exemplary fairness and thoroughness with which that inquiry has been conducted. We await its conclusions with great interest.
Nevertheless, if the GLC goes forward in the midst of this inquiry and asks hon. Members to approve parts of this expenditure, those who represent London constituencies suffering from a grievous housing shortage and threatened by some of these road schemes cannot be expected to remain silent on the ground that the whole matter is sub judice—I know that the question of sub judice raises a lot of questions at present—because if they did it might be said later that they had acquiesced in the principle of all those projects.
After some inquiry since the Bill originally saw the light of day I have been given further details of Item 5 in the Schedule. It includes £6,194,000 for the acquisition of property and the execution of works for metropolitan roads. I should

like to be told by those who have sponsored the Bill whether that includes work on any of the motorway schemes now being examined by the panel of inquiry into the GLDP under Mr. Layfield. I think that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster would agree that it would be improper for work to begin on such schemes before the panel had made its very important report and the House had considered it.
Secondly, I am informed, after a little research, that the proposed expenditure includes the acquisition of property and the execution of works in connection with the construction of the West cross route and Westway. But the West cross route is also now being examined by a local public inquiry which in due course is to report to the Secretary of State.
I understood the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster to give an assurance that in so far as those matters affect any schemes covered by these inquiries they will in no circumstances go ahead in advance of those inquiries and the Minister's decision. It is valuable to have that assurance quite firm—in itself, that would justify a brief debate on this matter tonight—but it would be more satisfactory if we could have that assurance from the Government as well. Although I am sure that the hon. Member speaks in the best of good faith, he has no very great responsibility for the execution and implementation of these policies.
Clearly, it would be wrong if these schemes went ahead in advance of the findings of the public inquiries which are now under way. That applies also to expenditure not only on the West cross route but on the works at the approaches to Wandsworth Bridge, which is really a part of the West cross route. I hope that since we have the Under-Secretary with us he will take an active part in the proceedings and give us an assurance to that effect.
The Government must also review the whole policy of destroying houses in a period of worsening housing shortage in the great cities simply to allow more and more traffic to travel a little faster. The figures for London show that if present road-building plans go ahead, financed by public money, the destruction of homes


in order to build motorways will be a major cause of housing shortage in the future.
The GLC is now deliberately planning for a housing shortage in Greater London in 1981 of about 95,000 homes, enough for about 300,000 people. The motorway programme, quite apart from the astronomical financial cost, would involve the destruction of about 30,000 dwellings, and if the land lost was used for housing it could accommodate about 100,000. If the whole programme goes ahead one third of the housing shortage in London in 10 years' time, and all the human distress that will accompany it will not be because of the real shortage of housing or land but because of the building of unwanted motorways, unwanted by those who live in the densely populated districts which will be affected.
In Battersea, where bad housing is by far the most acute human problem, houses for 4,000 or 5,000 people will be destroyed if the programme is allowed to proceed. That is not my figure but an admission by the GLC. An already distressing problem would be made a great deal worse. Even the limited West cross route, which is only one part of the proposed Ringway 1, though only 2½miles long—estimated to cost £64 millions—would destroy homes for about 3,000 or 4,000 people in Hammersmith, Fulham and Chelsea.
The Government cannot escape responsibility for all this. The 75 per cent. grant from the Exchequer for urban motorways not merely permits but, as far as I can discover, sometimes almost incites local authorities to propose such schemes, even if there is no local demand for them except from the road-building vested interests. In one city the offer of the grant has been quoted by the proposers of a scheme as a main reason for building an urban motorway which would carve up the city. It is not merely in London but in one city and town after another that one hears the same story—Edinburgh, Bath, Bristol, Portsmouth, Yeovil, Bedford, Canterbury, Cardiff, to quote just a few examples. A vastly expensive inner motorway project is prepared very much in private by technicians, so-called consultants, some of whom seem to have vested financial interests in the

proposal. It is sold to a few reluctant local authority councillors and then opposed as soon as it becomes known by the vast majority of people living in the area.
A basic mistake was made in extending the perfectly sensible idea of inter-urban motorways to the destructive inner urban motorways, which in London would be most damaging of all and would make the housing situation so much worse. The whole policy is based on the simple mistake of believing that because we can relieve living conditions by taking traffic round residential areas we can do the same by taking it through residential areas. We cannot, and we only make matters worse.
While we all await the report of the panel of inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan, I hope that the Government quite apart from the assurances they can give tonight, will thoroughly, open-mindedly and independently examine the whole problem of the urban motorways, and not be too much swayed by the vested interest which the technicians and the road-building interests have a stake in. I hope the Minister will give his mind to that.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I should like briefly to refer to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea North (Mr. Jay) before turning to the comments already made by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) about the grant for London Transport, which is item 14 on the Schedule to the Bill. I do not intend to oppose it, because we know the money must be found. But Parliament has a right to make comments and ask questions.
I should declare a semi-interest in that I am a co-opted member of one of the GLC Committees, Environmental Planning, although, of course, among the opposition.
In my constituency we have a possible road scheme of the sort to which my right hon. Friend referred, it is the enlargement of Ringway 2, which is the North Circular Road, which bisects Ealing Common and passes close to housing in my constituency. The borough council has made formal objections, and there


are many objections from the local residents' associations. The scheme was advertised some time ago, and the date by which the objections were to be in was also some time ago, but we have not yet heard whether there will be a public inquiry. I hope that, if not tonight some time in the not-too-distant future, local residents will be assured that there will be a public inquiry, because the delay is a little unnerving to say the least.
I turn to the comments already made by my right hon. Friend. He made the point that the road schemes of the GLC as proposed will be very costly I wish to pose two further questions. Even if the roads are built, shall we have a viable and balanced system for movement in London? All the evidence I have read and everything I know of the subject suggests that we shall not, because roads are relatively inflexible in the number of people they can take. Even very large motorways with one or two people per car cannot take many people, and the possibility is that we should have a road system which would be congested at certain times, being rapidly gummed up on occasions, together with a public transport system which would be impoverished. It is fairly clear that we cannot have both.
As a member of the committee, I put some questions to officers of the GLC two or three years ago about the political choice of investment. They were not answered. The Greater London Development Panel has put severe questions to the GLC because, in the first round of hearings, it was not satisfied that the Council had paid sufficient attention to the balance between public transport and roads.
It is to that aspect which I now turn because one of the great things which the Council has left out of its evidence to the panel is the cost of movement to individuals. We know what it costs to travel by road. We are constantly told, especially by the motoring organisations, that the cost of public transport, particularly to families, escalates almost monthly. What we have not heard about the GLC scheme is the cost to the individual of travelling to work or of public transport for leisure. Public transport has a great deal of spare capacity for other than work travel. It is no use the GLC concentrat-

ing on travel-to-work public transport and forgetting these other things. As we must have a public transport system, whether it is used during the weekends or in off-peak periods or not, the additional traffic it can carry is at much lower marginal cost. It is the GLC's responsibility to see that the fares policy is realistic.
In October, 1970, the GLC published an interesting green paper called, "The future of London Transport". It held vast meetings all over the GLC area with public participation. As a result, it set London Transport a number of questions. One of the principal questions was what its commercial policy for fares was, and in particular for cheap travel, like "freedom tickets", which are possibly used off-peak for as much travel as the holder likes for a nominal sum per month or per week. London Transport was also asked to investigate the repeated cry of "flat fares", which may not be feasible but to which we do not know the answers.
The Chairman of the Policy Resources Committee of the GLC has not yet received a reply to this comprehensive inquiry. Yet London Transport has gone ahead with a series of all-in tickets. This may be a good thing, and I am not saying that London Transport is wrong to do so. But it has jumped the gun on commercial policy for fare-paying. The GLC says that London Transport has not replied to this comprehensive inquiry from its political masters as to what fares policy should be.
Is it right that a body requiring an £8 million grant from the GLC, and having been asked to provide a basis or possible basis of commercial policy of cheap tickets and so on, should say, "Yes, we will" but in the meantime should introduce its own policy? There is something wrong with the chain of command and I hope that County Hall will be less palsied in its approach to making London Transport accountable, in this respect if in nothing else.
The GLC is granting in this next year £8 million to London Transport's capital expenditure. The grant has gone up over the years. In 1970 it was £2 million; in 1971, it rose to £5·9 million; and in 1972 it is £8 million. Yet the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster had to confess that he did not know what the money was to be spent on. He said that £3 million was for


railway expansion, but he could not say what the balance of £5 million would be spent on. He said that it would be difficult to tell at this stage. It is extraordinary that we should not know what the money is to be spent on. I am not necessarily saying that the Bill should state what the money is to be spent on, but the information should at least be in the GLC minutes or on its agenda.
I have had some correspondence with the GLC. I asked whether the decisions on what this £5 million will be spent on would be reported to the GLC at its bi-monthly meetings and put up for public scrutiny. I have had no reassurance on that. I hope that I shall and that this will happen. I have had no reply so far and this seems to be bad in principle and also reflects on the general attitude to this balance of investment dealt with in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. If we do not know what the £5 million is to be spent on in the remainder of the year what is the plan? What criteria are to be applied to this substantial public investment in public transport which is too expensive anyway?
There seems to be, yet again, some gap in what I call the accountability chain which is so fundamental to our democratic way of doing things. Unless this gap is bridged the general public will continue to have doubts about the stewardship of the GLC in this respect.
I asked the GLC about the coming year and it could not give me any details but referred me to the past year. In the London Transport Report for 1971 we see that there has been substantial capital expenditure on buses. Nearly £6 million of public money last year went on the purchase of new buses—£4,300,000 from the Department of the Environment under Section 32 of the Transport Act, 1968, and £1,543,000 from the GLC. We have some idea of where some of this £5 million is going—on the purchase of new buses.
The grant from public moneys for the purchase of new buses is now 50 per cent. It was 25 per cent. and on 8th November, 1971 this House approved the new bus grant Order and hon. Members on this side of the House were very glad that we did so. During that debate I raised the point that the public were having to pay half the money on these

new buses but, at least in my part of the world, the new single-decker buses were looked upon with a certain amount of dissatisfaction.
As time goes on our buses seem to get less and less comfortable, despite what the advertisements say. This point was taken up by the Minister for Transport Industries who was his usual sympathetic and apologetic best. It has not helped my old ladies, trying to get on very badly designed buses. We might be spending this £5 million on buses that are not very good. We have standardisation and that would be a jolly good if we had a good design. But it can be catastrophic if we have the wrong design. I understand that the standardisation is in the hands of the Department of the Environment. It has produced some difficulty.
Not only are these buses badly designed from the passenger point of view, but, as many hon. Gentlemen know, they are breaking down wholesale. This is new to London. In 1910 when buses were introduced they used to break down but we have never had anything like this. We have had difficulty in getting spares, or so we have been told and I have had complaints about oil strewn on the roads. In my constituency there is up to a 5 per cent. reduction in buses because so many are off the road. I have even heard stories of men sitting in the garage waiting to take out buses which have broken down.
The Chairman of London Transport has replied to some of my questions. I asked him about the bad service and the difficulty of design and whether the manufacturers of the buses or the equipment used in them were repaying London Transport for some of the substantial expenditure it has had, in addition to the normal expenditure, to keep these buses on the road. I have had no reply to that. I asked whether there was a clause in the agreement of purchase providing for financial liability, and I have had no reply. As quarter of the cost of these buses, when they were bought, came from public sources, the GLC is accountable to this House for some of the money at least and the public should know whether we are covered by some clause against their breaking down.
Clearly the designs were bad. I can tell the House why. It is because, in the Whitehall manner of standardisation, London Transport was not allowed or


did not wish—there is a bit of a muddle; nobody can tell me what it was—to design its own buses which it had done until recently. I cannot necessarily blame the officers of London Transport in this respect—they did not have much chance—but something went badly wrong and we now have an unsatisfactory situation regarding this contract. No doubt remedial measures are now being taken, but bus purchase goes on apace.
The public has had to swallow a bitter pill over this whole matter. Yet nobody will say who is responsible. It is a fumble between the bureaucracies of Whitehall and 55 Broadway that this has occurred. Therefore, it is with all the greater concern that I find that the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us what the £5 million is to be spent on.
I have outlined this matter in terms of the general and particular policy of how it hits my constituents and all fare-payers in London. If there is no Clause in the contracts to give some repayment to public funds from the manufacturers of these buses, it will be an addition to the already high cost of travel. I will not say it is significant, but it is an addition to it and reflects a generally loose system of accountability between London Transport and the GLC which I have already outlined in several respects.
On Third Reading one has the opportunity of drawing these matters to the attention of Ministers and hon. Members on both sides who are concerned. That is the proper function of the House. I am glad to have had the opportunity of taking part in the debate. I support the Bill because of its general financial proposals, but I have grave doubts about the roads and the £5 million for London Transport which I have described.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and I are in fundamental disagreement on most matters, but on the London motorway box we are in complete agreement. I was in total opposition to it when it was first put into the Greater London Council (Money) Bill by the Labour Party when it controlled the GLC. Equally, when the Conservative Party first took over and it was still supported by the Labour Party, I

was in opposition, and I remain in opposition irrespective of who controls the GLC or puts the money into the Bill.
I shall go on opposing the principle of the motorway box in London. However, it is right that nobody should be misled into thinking that the idea was sold to a few reluctant councillors by officials and consultants, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. No one should be under any illusion that the reluctant councillors were from one party. They were from both parties. Although some sinners have repented, the facts still need to be put completely straight.
I appreciate the significance of the debate on Third Reading of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill. I said last year, and say again today, that it is anachronistic that we should debate in Parliament the financial affairs of a local authority, however important it may be. I hope that this may be the last occasion on which we have such a Third Reading debate and that the GLC will have to find its money via the Government through key and non-key sectors as other local authorities do. The time of Parliament should not be taken up by debating matters which can easily be dealt with by the elected members of an authority which then goes to the Government to get its money like every other local authority. Otherwise the temptation arises for all of us to suggest that the workings of Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool ought equally to be raised here.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will convey to the Secretary of State that in the reform of local government finance it would be a welcome departure if this last local authority were to lose its power to receive its money in this way and had to go through the mechanism through which every other local authority must go.
I add my words of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat), for introducing the Third Reading in such a felicitous, disarming and charming way, and yet at the same time giving us the meat of the Bill. It has been in the past the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker), who performed the task equally well. It does


not matter that the person who introduced the Bill is not a member of the Greater London Council. The important thing is that the Bill has been introduced into the House and debated. It is better to have an independent mind—this god-fatherly way, I think the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said—

Mr. William Hamling: Stepfatherly.

Mr. Finsberg: The relationship is immaterial. The way it is done is the important thing. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster. He has convinced me that the Greater London Council requires the money it is asking for in the Bill. I am satisfied that if the democratically elected Greater London Council, whatever party is in power, says it needs the money, it should get it. However, it should not have to come to the House for it. It should proceed like every other local authority.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: One of the interesting developments over the last two or three years is the extent to which Members of Parliament and members of local authorities of all political persuasions have expressed similar views relating to the development of London and the development of urban areas.
It has been interesting to hear the hon. Members for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) arguing their cases about urban development, which a few years ago we would have expected to be argued only from this side of the House.
The argument which the hon. Member for Hampstead has been advancing is not particularly political. However, we are seeking at the moment the destruction of our cities because of what I would regard as commercial interests. Others would regard them as the interests of certain sections of the community. Whichever it is, our cities are being destroyed.
I, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, do not oppose the Bill. I am only too acutely aware of the need for some of its provisions. Item 5 includes a reference to West Way and the West Cross

route. Some of that money will, I imagine, be used to enable the houses in Acklam Road, which have become uninhabitable by virtue of West Way, to be purchased.
I emphasise that the urban motorway proposals, most of the metropolitan road proposals, incorporated in the Bill are disastrous. Some of them are necessary simply to improve the metropolitan traffic situation, but the bulk of them are proposals to improve the facility with which traffic from outside London can come into London. We must accept that this is destroying the City for no adequate purpose. The Westway route, which was opened two years ago, runs through the heart of my constituency. There was an immense outcry from the residents in my constituency because of the damage it caused. First we had the destruction to build the road and then, as soon as the traffic came, much wider areas were made uninhabitable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned that a 2¼ mile stretch of motorway would involve the destruction of between 3,000 and 4,000 homes. But he will agree that this is on the old basis of assessment of what was involved in the clearance required to build a motorway. If we accept the new proposal for a 200-yard strip on either side of the motorway, I calculate that each mile of motorway will involve the destruction of about 5,000 homes. But it does much more. If we drive a 400-yard or 500-yard strip—the road, plus 200 yards on either side—through any community, we destroy that community.
North Kensington has suffered, and will suffer, a great deal as a result of having the community cut in two, but what perhaps will be even worse is the transformation of the character of the community as a result of the traffic coming into it. A consequence of the opening of the Westway route two years ago was that feeder roads in the vicinity became empty. Holland Park Avenue was comparatively clear for the first time for a long time. A year later the traffic congestion was back to what it had been before. Now, two years later, it is worse than ever because every car which comes into London along Westway in the morning runs into the immense traffic jam on the Edgware Road flyover and spends


15, 20 or 30 minutes waiting to get into Marylebone Road. The experienced drivers learn this and turn off and come through Shepherd's Bush and up the old and residential roads. Before very long the traffic jam will stretch further back and people will come off at Acton to avoid the congestion on the motorway.
We cannot build enough roads to cope with all the people who will want to commute into London or to go from one side of London to the other. The only way in which we can cope is by expanding and improving the public transport services, by restricting the degree of private traffic in central London and by introducing a fares policy which encourages people to use public transport instead of private transport.
These are questions which are closely related to the subject matter of the Bill, but it is not appropriate to use the Bill as a means of discussing the motorway and motor car principle in general. While I join in supporting the Bill, and while I am anxious that money should be made available to the Greater London Council to enable it to carry out most of the purposes of the Bill, I welcome the assurance from the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) that it in no way prejudices the inquiries into the Greater London Development Plan.
Nevertheless, I am apprehensive that the approval of the expenditure on item 5 and the spending of £6,194,000 on the
Acquisition of property and execution of works for construction and improvement of metropolitan roads
is begging the question of what will be done. I would rather see this money allocated to the subsidisation of public transport within Greater London to ensure that we did not destroy our community for the sake of allowing cars and lorries to move more freely within it.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. William Hamling: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) for introducing the Bill in the way he did. We do not often get an opportunity to discuss the affairs of London. Other areas have their moments; Yorkshire and Humberside had theirs yesterday. It is a long time

since hon. Members representing Greater London constituencies have had an opportunity to discuss the problems of living in London which affect so many constituents.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) mentioned the bipartisan approach to motorway policy in London that used to operate. I regret that certain members of my party some years ago supported the building of motorways, and I am glad that they have now seen the light. I am tolerably certain that it is not simply because they have moved into the Opposition benches. I opposed the motorway plan before I came to the House, and I have opposed it ever since, whether Labour was in power in the House or in power on the other side of the water, for reasons which will be obvious to the hon. Gentleman because he shares the same attitude.
The hon. Member for Hampstead said that it was anachronistic for Parliament to discuss the affairs of London in this way. I am not sure. London is a special city, a unique city in the world. It is our capital city and it is the Mecca of millions of people from all over the world who throng here throughout the year to enjoy the theatres, many of which face destruction, the open spaces, many of which face destruction and many other amenities which face destruction. It is against the threat of the destruction of so much of London that is traditional, attractive and artistically fine that we hold this debate tonight. It is a chance to discuss environmental questions in the London area in a unique way.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said that the Bill was concerned with every item in the life of a great city—education, housing, planning, transport and so on. To that extent there is a unity in the Bill and therefore in the debate which should be recognised elsewhere. He was a little disingenuous in saying that the Bill had bipartisan support in that the Inner London Education Authority supported item 7. I am not sure that the majority of people in ILEA would support items 13 and 14 or the details in all the other items in the Schedule, but I take his point. ILEA is concerned with item 7 inasmuch as it is education, but all these


matters are interrelated and there is a unity of policy behind the items in the Schedule to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred in his significant speech There are one or two other aspects of that unity to which I shall refer later.
One of the matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North discussed was the roads programme. It is interesting to note the balance of expenditure between that programme not only in the Schedule but as it is envisaged under the Greater London Development Plan and the expenditure on public transport. The balance is enormously one way. I recognise that the item for public transport in the Schedule relates only to a brief period and that the GLDP is concerned with 20 years or more. But the balance is still wrong. The balance of policy is still wrong. My right hon. Friend was right to ask questions about the policy in respect of public transport, and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) went a little awry when he said that it was not feasible to talk about a single unitary fare on London Transport. I do not accept that. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for a single unitary fare—of a rather small dimension, as it were, bridging the gap between me and my hon. Friend.
I was about to say that my constituency lies south of the river, unlike any hon. Member who has spoken so far. Of course, the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North is south of the river. But I never think of Battersea as being south of the river. However, I represent the forgotten part of London, the south-east, which does not appear on London Transport's tube maps. It is astonishing that those who ran London's tubes in the past never seemed to hear about any part of South-East London beyond New Cross and Lewisham.
We in the south-east parts of London are very much concerned with the road expenditure referred to in the Schedule. The southern end of Blackwall Tunnel comes within my own borough of Greenwich, and the road developments at that end of the tunnel presage a tremendous development of road construction which will destroy the character of South-East London.
Many people north of the river think that South-East London is an area of smoking factories and slums. That is not true. There is not a slum left in my constituency, and hardly a slum left in the older part of Greenwich, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North will remember from his childhood, when he lived at the top of Shooters Hill. The sums of those days have gone completely, and the Woolwich part of Greenwich is one of the most attractive parts of any urban area in the world. Yet it is to be desecrated by this tremendous construction of motorways, which will destroy not only homes, though that is bad enough, but the character of the place.
People live in homes. But they also live in communities. Very often, those communities have the character of villages of another age. They are quiet, pleasant areas where neighbours know each other and where they can walk about in peace. All that is to be destroyed. Half a square mile of South-East London is to be bounded by four tremendous motorways, with two of the great junctions that we have all seen in the Birmingham area which will destroy any peace, quiet or amenity for the people who live there now.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is it not more peaceful and quieter for a vehicle to go along steadily at 50 m.p.h. than to be constantly braking, accelerating, and screeching its gears in traffic in congested areas? Which is the more peaceful and the quieter?

Mr. Hamling: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman lives, or whether he lives in Eltham, but if he envisages Eltham as a kind of great agglomeration of motorways, he will see that there will be no peace for anyone living there. There will be hardly any room for anyone to live there at all. There are 30,000 people living in this small area of London.
I know the problems of the A2. That is in the heart of my constituency. But I suggest to the hon. Member that the answer to that problem is not the destruction of London as we have known it traditionally—not the destruction of a living community.
I was in Sheffield recently. The centre of Sheffield has been transformed by redevelopment of one sort or another, with


the result that there is no life there and nobody lives there. On Sunday one might as well be living on a desert island because no one lives there any more. Development has destroyed the possibility of human habitation in the centre of that city. It may be attractive from a particular point of view, but it is not a place where people live.
I and my constituents want to live in South-East London. I live there and I do not want to see the place where I live destroyed in the way in which developers have destroyed the centres of so many of our cities and made it impossible to live there. That is what this debate is about. There is a unity in the debate.
Another question I want to put is: what preparations are being made to improve public transport in South-East London? They are not enumerated in the Schedule, and if I were to press this hard, I am certain that I should get a rather dusty answer. It seems to me that there are no particular improvements in this. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton may have inquired about new buses, but the provision of tubes is also part of London transport and my part of South-East London will see no tubes in the next 10 years. That is ridiculous. When the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) talks about motorcars in South-East London, he should also ask about public transport there, because that is a scandal and to pursue the sort of urban housing development in Thamesmead without making provision for public transport on a large or general scale is ridiculous.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I recall many meetings in 1964–65 when we were given an undertaking from the officers of London Transport that our part of South-East London would have a tube at the earliest stage. That agreement has since been pushed back by the introduction of the Fleet Line and other lines taking the place of that one. It is up to my hon. Friend's own authority to keep pressing for their own place in the queue.

Mr. Hamling: That is one reason for my speech tonight. I speak with the full support and knowledge of my local authority.
I now come to the planning aspects of the Bill. I was speaking about the destruction of amenity in London in recent years. One of the appalling aspects of this destruction of amenity and of civilisation is the redevelopment of London that has taken place under the aegis of the GLC. My right hon. Friend talked about the destruction of homes as a result of building motorways, but we know that the redevelopers, the big land speculators and the property speculators are destroying in 12 months many more houses and homes than the Greater London Development Plan would with the building of motorways in 20 years.
At this rate, few people will be living in the centre of London in the not-too-distant future, and we have the unparalleled spectacle of a block of flats in Tottenham Court Road being knocked down as a preparation for a redevelopment plan. When the people who are knocking down these flats were asked why they were doing it they replied, "We are knocking them down to secure them against vandalism". I want to know who are the vandals in London. It seems to me that the vandals in London are the property speculators and developers who are destroying homes and amenities, regardless of the quality of life of the ordinary Londoner.
The Piccadilly Circus project is supposed to facilitate traffic. What about the desires of the ordinary Londoner to walk about his London? Those desires are not being facilitated by this sort of redevelopment and the sort of redevelopment that is taking place in Cambridge Circus. The destruction of the flats to which I have referred is part of the preparation for that development.
The building of office blocks is to take precedence over the building of homes. That is not the sort of London that Londoners want. They want a city in which they can live, in which they can enjoy themselves, in which they can receive their friends from elsewhere in the country and from overseas and show them some of the old sights of London, and show them the theatres of London. At the rate that we are going there will be no theatres in London.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to change the burden of proof in planning


applications for redeveloping city centres? We should require the developer to justify to the planning committee that what he is proposing is for the benefit of the community, rather than put the burden on the planning committee to establish that the development is undesirable. We should shift the burden of proof in favour of the planning committee and against the developer.

Mr. Hamling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I should go further and say that the job of a public authority is not to facilitate redevelopment in this way. Its job is to look at London instead. This is a London which is worth preserving and ought to be preserved, and some of the items in the Bill do not commend themselves to me very much. I think that vast fortunes are being made by property speculators in London. Far more money is being made in that way than by the building of homes for ordinary people, and this is a sad commentary on our times.
My right hon. Friend and some of my hon. Friends have said that they will not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because it contains many items of expenditure which they regard as highly desirable. Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead, there is a certain difficulty about our debating the application of the Greater London Council for funds for capital expenditure. Nevertheless, we are right to take this opportunity of looking at life in London in the round, and at the trends in development, transport and roads, and to say, "The destruction of London has gone far enough. It should stop."

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I had no intention of intervening in the debate, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have provoked me slightly.
I have listened with concern and horror to descriptions of the destruction likely to take place in Battersea, Woolwich and Acton. I think of Battersea Park, Wandsworth Common and Clapham Common, all within easy distance of Battersea. I think of the green sward in Woolwich and how wonderful that is for people living there. Then I think of my area, Shoreditch, where there is no

grass. Year by year we have asked the Greater London Council to provide the open spaces which are mandatory and expected. Our people were housed at 136 to 200 persons to the acre. There are no "desirable maisons" in Shoreditch. One cannot buy a house in Shoreditch. That is not because of a shortage, but because there is none to buy.
Under Item 2 £1,551,000 is allocated to March, 1973, for open spaces, and so on, with a further £700,000 up to September. It is a great pity that the GLC did not request those sums for the greater areas which it has now handed over to the London boroughs. In my area the three open spaces which the GLC should have completed are now the responsibility of the London Borough of Hackney. Hackney has to find the money to get rid of the housing which needs pulling down. Hackney has to find the housing into which to move those whose houses are pulled down. Hackney has to pay for opening out the whole area and laying it out properly.
Last year I raised with the hon. Gentleman's Department the matter of Shepherdess Walk in my area. I condemned the Government for handing over, in an order, the open spaces to the boroughs, pointing out that there would inevitably be delay, with people living in distressing circumstances, unable to have their houses pulled down and be re-housed so that the open spaces could be developed. I received a three-page letter explaining that this was not true and that the GLC would push ahead. I still do not have my Shepherdess Walk Park, Haggerston Park or Shoreditch Park.
Week after week people are complaining bitterly that their premises are damp and that they are being forced to live in a filthy state. I grumble and complain to the GLC and the borough council. But no one has any money. No one can afford to do anything about the problems now. People have to go on in this way, living in these deplorable conditions. But, above all, we have no open space. If anyone spots a tree in my constituency, I say to him, "Photograph it. It is the last that you will see here."
The sum involved in Item 2 is outrageous when there is now far less area for which the GLC is responsible. Yet it is raising even greater money for a


smaller area. The GLC stands condemned for its indolence over the past four or five years regarding Shoreditch.
Whilst I commiserate with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the possibility of losing some of their green sward, I hope for their support for my assertion that it is about time that we had some green sward in Shoreditch, the constituency which I have the privilege to represent.
I happen to be at the end of the story regarding roads. The great 30-ton juggernauts carrying food and provisions into London are often unable to go to the docks because the GLC has not yet been able to make the proper arrangements for these vehicles. Every street in my area is being used at this time of night as a transfer depot, and at half-past twelve, half-past one and half-past two in the morning the walkie-talkies are operating and these enormous juggernauts are starting up, frightening my constituents out of bed, in order to get down to the docks to discharge their loads. When they have done that, they bring back a load, unhook the mechanical horse and leave the trailer—unlighted, unregistered and uninsured—standing in the street so that it is a hazard to people in the area and virtually an obstruction.
When one discusses this with the Greater London Council little concern is shown. When one discusses it with the police, little concern is shown. Nobody seems to know who is responsible. I have already invited—I do again tonight—the hijackers who are anxious to hijack. All they need in my area is a mechanical horse. If they drive in a mechanical horse, there is a trailer loaded with valuable goods. By taking it away they would do us a favour. I do not care where they take it, what they do with it or to whom they sell it. My constituents would at least have a night's peace. If that is the way insurance companies are prepared to allow those insured with them to carry on, it is a matter for them. As far as I am concerned, however, there is nothing in the Bill that will enable my constituents to enjoy a quiet night's rest.
Therefore, while again I appreciate the problems of opening up areas for transport to travel through, my right hon. and hon. Friends should be grateful that

they are not at the end of the line where their constituents must put up with what my constituents have to put up with, because no arrangements are being made by the GLC or the police to ensure that our roads in Shoreditch are kept clear. So, while I am not opposing the Bill, I am bound to say that it was a bad day in 1967 when the GLC was won by the Tories, because from that moment onwards we have seen the demise of London.

12.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I intervene briefly in this debate which was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat). My response to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr Jay) may not be altogether agreeable to him when I say that he and others have had a lot to say about the proposed Ringway system. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that because this matter is to be reported to my right hon. Friend by the Greater London Development Plan inquiry panel it would be quite improper for me to be involved—indeed, I cannot be—in any comments on those remarks tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to reinforce the assurance given by my hon. Friend. I am sorry that I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman about this because that assurance is properly a matter for the Greater London Council and cannot be made for the Government.
One thing which has impressed me since I have been, albeit briefly, in the Department of the Environment is that all right hon. and hon. Members fiercely and frequently argue for the independence of local authorities, yet we are constantly urged on behalf of the Government to speak or make assurances for them or to call in plans or do various other things, thus denying local authorities that freedom.
Assurances have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, and in this debate, on the Third Reading of a Private Bill, he is best able to give assurances of that sort.

Mr. Jay: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says, because these


motorway schemes cannot proceed without permission from the Minister and the Government. I have already had assurance from previous Ministers that they will not be allowed to proceed in advance of the reports by the public inquiries now taking place. I should have thought that without the slightest difficulty the hon. Gentleman could have reaffirmed those assurances which have already been given by Ministers.

Mr. Speed: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that but I cannot anticipate either the report which is now much more imminent or any inquiries which might be taking place on any scheme because, as he knows, my right hon. Friend has a judicial capacity in this matter and I must not be drawn in. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to respond to suggestions that he made about reviewing a policy of destroying houses. In the same way, if I responded in the way he would like me to do I should be treading on extremely dangerous ground and might be anticipating or even prejudicing the Layfield inquiry.
The right hon. Member talked about the 75 per cent. grant, and was then speaking in general as well as with respect to London. I draw his attention—and I should be happy to send him a copy of the handout—to the speech that I made to the Institute of Municipal Treasurers at Brighton 10 or 12 days ago, from which he will see that the Government have some interesting plans in mind which might meet the point that he and other hon. Members have been making, connected particularly with urban transportation throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) spoke about the possibility of a public inquiry on the enlargement of Ringway 2. I cannot give him an answer tonight, but I shall be in touch with him in due course about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) spoke about the question of having this sort of Bill at all. All I can say is that, as he knows, we are examining the whole question of local government finance, and I shall draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
This is a Private Bill. The Third Reading has been admirably introduced by my hon. Friend. The Private Bill

Committee has advised that the Bill be given a Third Reading. That is a view that the Government accept, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR REACTOR INDUSTRY (VINTER REPORT)

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I wish to raise at the end of what has been a long sitting what I regard as being by all judgments an important subject—the question of the future of the British nuclear reactor industry in relation to the Vinter Report.
It is obviously impossible in the space of a short Adjournment debate to deal with all the complexities of the subject. Also, I am anxious to leave sufficient time to the Minister to make amends for the way in which the Government have so far treated the House of Commons about their intentions in relation to the Vinter Report. I do not think that this is in any sense a private issue, because from the last war to the present time many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have gone into the development of nuclear power—indeed, the sum spent has almost Concorde-like dimensions if taken in total.
Therefore, the House has a right to have its questions on this subject answered. I object to the kind of reply that I received as recently as yesterday to a Question asking whether the Minister would publish the comments of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the recommendations of the Vinter Committee on Nuclear Reactor Policy. I had the enlightening answer that this could not be done, that the House was aware that the report was confidential and that, therefore, the CEGB comments on it must equally be so.
That was an extraordinary answer. The House may be aware that the Government treat the report as confidential, but it is not self-evident. It is the


Government who make the report confidential, and no one else, unless we are to assume that the industry's policy is so important that Parliament and the people must know nothing about it. Apart from the public's financial interest it should not be supposed that nuclear technology is a special science, of narrow interest only; it is bound up with the whole future of our general industrial technology at home and in world markets.
Nuclear technology can reasonably be said to be on the wave of the future because however long the fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—last, everyone agrees that their life is finite. Modern industrial civilisation is based on energy and without the potential energy of the atom our civilisation, whether we regard it as good or bad, will not endure for long when the fossil fuels are finished. We are therefore all concerned with nuclear development, whether we realise it or not.
Mr. Peter Vinter has been immediately concerned with this business in this country. He is a highly placed and, I am sure, competent civil servant. But he has not served alone on the Committee. Although the names of the other members have never been given I do not think that the Under-Secretary will deny that they include Sir Stanley Brown, head of the CEGB, and Sir John Hill, head of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, in short, representatives of both the principal State monopoly purchasing organisation and the State monopoly research organisation.
The manufacturers depend on the two State organisations. I only wish that the Labour Government had remembered this when they rejected the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1967, of which I then had the privilege of being chairman. We recommended that there should be one united British design and construction company for nuclear energy development. To me that was and is an obvious solution. Britain needs a powerful concentrated international company, perhaps part public and part private—although I would not object too much if it were entirely public—which can compete in world markets against the American giants and the new German giants which are developing.
This obvious solution was rejected by the Labour Government in favour of what has turned out to be a very muddled compromise. The reduction of the three consortia, which existed previously, to two, in circumstances where there is no guarantee of orders to keep both financially and technically viable, was a mistake which was pointed out by the Select Committee five years ago. I have not much doubt that now, five years on, Mr. Peter Vinter, with Sir Stanley Brown and Sir John Hill roughly cancelling each other out, has found, as we found in 1967, that a decision on the choice of reactor systems cannot be separated from the important issue of the organisation of the nuclear reactor industry itself.
The idea that consortia, set up to build complete nuclear power stations from the foundations to the electronic control systems, where every constituent company wants its share of the work, can satisfy present industrial needs in relation to nuclear reactors, has been a nonsense for over a decade. The buyer of a nuclear boiler does not always want to buy the rest of the power station from the same source. The United States and Germany have long realised this, and they have concentrated on establishing single companies which specialise in reactor building. We must do the same if we are to make any future progress.
In the short time available I propose to put one or two pertinent questions to the Minister, to whom I am anxious to give the opportunity of a very full reply. First, following Vinter, will not the Government now have to make up their mind not only about the reactor systems but about the structure of the entire industry? Secondly, does not that mean that we must have one nuclear boiler company involving certainly the Atomic Energy Authority in part, and, I believe equally important, the new nuclear fuel company and the appropriate selected manufacturing interests? Has not there been a struggle between the Weinstock and the CEGB view, as expressed in the industrial sense through the Nuclear Development Company, and the McAlpine and the Atomic Energy Authority view, as represented through the Nuclear Power Group? Is it not true that Sir Arnold Weinstock has stressed his own company's profitability to such


an extent that he urged at one stage that we should if necessary abandon our own nuclear reactor industry and import reactors from America, where I think I am right in saying, the General Electric Company has a considerable stake in Westinghouse? That suggestion, I believe, Mr. Vinter's Committee rightly rejected. It would be appalling if Britain, which was the pioneer in the peaceful development of nuclear energy, should now turn tamely to the United States for its nuclear future.
In Europe, following the failure of the French to a great extent in this field, British nuclear technology has a great opportunity. Not all Europeans are happy about the present domination of American reactor systems, under licence or otherwise. Knowing the scientific and technical capacity of this country, I think that if given the right leadership the Continental Europeans would respond to a lead from the United Kingdom. But this means a firm and urgent decision on the British third generation of reactors. I think we have now completed the last of the Magnox stations, and the advanced gas-cooled reactor has had a very disappointing technical history. After all the praise that was given to it a few years ago there is unfortunately not yet one advanced gas-cooled reactor operating in this country. Therefore, following Magnox and the AGR we must fill a gap until the fast Dounreay breeder can come in as the final solution. Has Vinter made a recommendation on this?
The Select Committee in its Second Report on the industry some years ago concluded that the AEA steam-generating heavy water reactor should be adopted and commercial prototypes placed on both the English and Scottish supply systems if necessary. It was argued that the best way to convince foreign buyers of the advantages of a steam generating heavy water reactor, which can be made in small sizes and is therefore attractive in export markets, would be to try it out in a genuine commercial sense.
The Select Committee suggested that we should do what the Germans propose—have the reactor taken straight on to the system, even at prototype stage, and then, if the supply undertaking makes a loss as a result, and can prove it, the loss in financial terms is made up out of

the public purse. The experts of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, representative of the employees who do much of the designing, take the same general view.
I referred earlier to the Scottish supply system. There is an important issue connected with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. It wishes to buy, if given some encouragement, a £120 million nuclear power station using the heavy water reactor technique. It would be valuable to the country as a whole and to the export prospects if there were a supply undertaking immediately prepared to install a steam generating heavy water reactor. The CEGB in this matter has been too cautious, pleading safety considerations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) knows, the North of Scotland Board cannot wait indefinitely. It will be forced, unless a firm decision is announced, to substitute for this most interesting nuclear power system, using the heavy water reactor technique, an oil-fired power station, which would be a loss not only to Scotland but also to our nuclear export trade and its prospects.
Unfortunately, the Government, instead of moving towards a decision following the report of the industrious and hardworking Mr. Vinter, are now opening further consultations with the interests concerned—yet another round of talking. This is based on the assumption that decisions delayed are always good decisions. My experience of life is that it is generally the other way round.
The Government must come to a speedy decision on the future shape of the nuclear reactor industry. They must not delay any longer. They must decide on the choice of reactor. Further delay in relation to both these considerations would amount to an abdication of leadership in the industrial sense. As I have stressed, the public interest demands an end to treating the Vinter Report as if it were some kind of State secret. What is the justification for it? No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that it is commercial considerations, the giving away of our details to our competitors. I am sure the report could be published with any information of that kind omitted. The truth is that the Government are not anxious to have the report published


because it would expose even more than has been done so far their failure to make up their minds.

1.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) for raising this matter and for the way in which he did it until, perhaps, his last sentence. I pay tribute also to his knowledge of the electricity generating industry and to his work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
As a background to the debate I am sorry to have to say that nuclear power has not so far fulfilled the high promise originally held out for it. Nowhere in the world is there a reactor system that was launched without considerable problems. But obviously nuclear power is a long-term business and the Government have no doubt of its increasing importance to the United Kingdom. Short-term considerations will not be allowed to impair our capacity to exploit this valuable and vital source of power.
The main questions are two. The first is, how to build up a strong nuclear industry to provide us with a cheap and reliable source of electricity, bearing in mind that nowhere in the world does the industry yet manage without some support from public funds, and the second is how to make the best use of the development expertise that has been built up here and overseas at considerable expense?
The Vinter Committee and its work needs to be put into perspective. The Thermal Reactor Working Party—TRWP as it is known—was set up to review the choice of thermal nuclear reactors. While this is only one of the questions the Government must consider in the course of their wider review of our national investment in nuclear power, the working party was structured so that the Government, in collaboration with the Atomic Energy Authority and the generating boards, could, in consultation with the nuclear industry, consider the main types of thermal reactor on offer. May I here pay a tribute to the civil servant who chaired the Committee and all who served with him. An extensive amount of work had to be undertaken and this

involved the mastering of the most detailed technological and scientific information. I am grateful for the way in which this difficult task was undertaken.
Here may I reply to the demands that this should be published. I think I know the hon. Member fairly well. He would want all Ministers to be able to recruit the best possible advice, whether in committee form or individually, so as to reach decisions. The decisions that will be made will be the Government's, not the Committee's and it will be the Government who will be responsible. For this report it was essential that all of the most secret and the most commercially sensitive information should be at the disposal of Ministers. If that is to be obtained, assurances must be given to those providing this advice that it will be held to be confidential. Therefore I cannot hold out any hope that the report, which is to Ministers, will be published.
The Department of Trade and Industry and senior officials are in continuous consultation with both sides of industry. The AEA, the CEGB, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., the boilermakers, Babcock and Wilcox, Clarke Chapman and John Thompson, as well as GEC, have all been involved in talks in the last few weeks.
It is not only the employers' side of the industry that has been consulted. I was present when the Minister for Industry saw the Institution of Professional Civil Servants on 18th May, and when I visited Winfrith recently I ensured that I met the staff and trade union side.
The need for speed in this matter is understood. In all this it is widely recognised that the design and construction consortia, the Nuclear Power Group and British Nuclear Design and Construction, are seriously short of work, like many of the important manufacturers with shareholdings in them. The Government realise the disadvantages from continuing the delay to staff morale, to business planning at home and to our export potential. Events have, however, conspired against us to the extent that earlier this year the fall off in demand for electricity has postponed the need for the generating boards to order more power stations.
Not the least of the many complexities to be faced in the current review is the need to weigh up the several interests of


the designers, now in TNPG and BNDC, the hardware manufacturers, now spread throughout the electrical and heavy engineering industries, and the nuclear fuel company itself. There are many problems between a turnkey operation or a sales, design and construction concept based on the nuclear island, all of which have to be fully considered.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Emery: I have only five minutes. I am sorry.

Mr. Hughes: It is on one specific question.

Mr. Emery: I still have six to answer of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central and it is his Adjournment debate. If I have time I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: This question affects Scotland.

Mr. Emery: I am coming to Scotland.
I turn now to international collaboration. The Government are fully seized of the advantages of international collaboration. By this it would be possible to reduce the cost of large projects to the benefit of all parties involved.
Three main kinds of collaboration are being investigated: first, collaboration between R and D bodies, such as the West German research institutes and the AEA; secondly, collaboration between customer utilities, which can play a useful part in focussing demand on fewer types of equipment; and, thirdly, collaboration between manufacturers, possibly extending to jointly owned companies.
The Department is in close touch with potential partners in West Europe and in Canada. There are also licence possibilities with the USA. It would be wrong not to consider those. From this it will be seen that the patterns of industrial nuclear organisation abroad are of great interest tous and have been scrutinised with care. All of us should realise that mutual co-operation within Europe may well present considerable advantages.
I should like to mention our Commonwealth partner, Canada. The Canadians, as well as ourselves, have a heavy water reactor which in one form especially—that installed at Gentilly—has close simi-

larities with our steam generating heavy water reactor. The CANDU system, however, is not geared to use enriched uranium like the SGHWR, which puts it at some economic disadvantage. Nonetheless, if it is decided to adopt the SGHWR generally in the United Kingdom, there appears to be scope for useful collaboration on pressure tube reactor technology between the United Kingdom and Canada.
It would be wrong not to mention quickly the fast breeder reactor. The sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor is inherently promising and of great interest. Whereas thermal reactors, of whatever type, use only about 1 per cent. of the potential energy contained in uranium, fast reactors are designed to use at least 70 per cent. In other words, whereas thermal reactors skim off the cream, fast reactors use the milk as well. This means that fast reactors should, and most people think must, have an important part to play in the optimum use of world resources. For this reason they are being pursued in most advanced industrial countries, but the Government are well aware of the outstanding progress made on our own design at Dounreay. Here again it is interesting to see that Scotland is taking a lead in this aspect of nuclear technology. It is important to realise that the thermal reactor needs to be an intermediary choice between the passage of the AGRs and the time the fast breeder can be brought in.
Despite the potential advantage of the fast breeders and the encouraging progress made on them in this country, perhaps even more than elsewhere, there is still and must be a place for thermal reactors. The range of Magnox reactors now in use throughout the country is reliable. They will, however, not continue to be built, because of the cost of their construction.
The main purpose of the Vinter Committee was to assess the relative merits of the three types which are left, the advanced gas-cooled reactor, the steam generating heavy water reactor and the high temperature reactor, alongside the main foreign systems. All aspects, including economic, technical, industrial and safety questions, are covered by our consideration. However, it would be foolish for anyone to believe that the overall assessment of these alternatives


is a simple matter, or that it should be made quickly purely for the sake of speed of decision.
I conclude by making three positive points. The Government realise only too well the overall need for a decision on future reactor policy, and we are dealing with this as a matter of urgency. We also realise that this may mean the basic reconstruction of the structures and organisations controlling the whole sphere of nuclear power. Lastly, the Government are absolutely determined that there shall be a strong, important and active nuclear industry in the United Kingdom. That is what our decision

making is about, and we are treating it as a matter of urgency to make the right decision.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister answer a specific point? The electricity demand in the North of Scotland is urgent and needs a decision.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes past One o'clock